• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    40
so is this:


photo_60SS.jpg



marlin 60 .22lr rifle.
That should definitely be banned. :mrgreen: You'll shoot your eye out kid.
 
So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?
A machine gun is known as a machine gun, it uses a belt to feed the ammunition and has a signifigantly larger range than assault rifles, which typically uses shorter load ammunition and a simple spring to create the auto effect.
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.
1986, and there have only been 2 murders committed with a fully automatic weapon.

Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally,
That is not true
and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them.
How do you theorize that, they aren't exactly effective for a surprise attack due to their size, criminals rely on the advantage of surprise.
The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought.
see my prior point.
I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?
My rights are not dependent on my needs, that invalidates your point completely, secondly, how does one know his house won't be under a blitzkrieg, that is, more than one invader.
 
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.

? What does the SUV example have to do with anything? Cars make easy for people to go places, and all of them are very simillar, so they should all be legal.

and i don't consider it a "right" for someone to have a gun. (but the second amendment makes it a right)

so since it isn't a right, I base my views on what is practical. I need to look at charts of the lethality of guns. the problem is that I couldn't find it, and it only seemed to exist for bullets.

No. It is not. It is a machinegun or an assault rifle or a submachine gun, but it is NOT an 'assault weapon'.


1: There is no such things as an 'automatic assault weapon'
2: Machineguns are not illegal. I know several people that own them, and a quick search will find several dealers of same.
machine guns for sale - Google Search


Your suspicions are, obviously, wrong.

Yeah, im going to have to look up how dangerous certain weapons are so I can draw the line somewhere about where I think the weapons should be illegal (if there was no second amendment). thats for the info on machineguns.


I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
 
Last edited:
? What does the SUV example have to do with anything? Cars make easy for people to go places, and all of them are very simillar, so they should all be legal.
Not all cars are similar, in fact they have more differences than guns, such as horsepower differences, cornering, acceleration, torque, weight(important in an accident), etc. The point is that my rights aren't based on my needs.

and i don't consider it a "right" for someone to have a gun. (but the second amendment makes it a right)
We don't care what you consider a right, and neither did the founding fathers, which is why the second amendment exists to keep those who would violate the naturally ocurring right to self defense by limiting our options in weapons.




Yeah, im going to have to look up how dangerous certain weapons are so I can draw the line somewhere about where I think the weapons should be illegal (if there was no second amendment). thats for the info on machineguns.
Why would you want to limit people's rights? Do you have a compelling reason that does not violate the necessary and proper test?

I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
False, you are incorrectly assigning results to the law, machine guns were legal in the eighteen hundreds(Gatling gun) and the murder rate is still less than 10 people by legally owned machine guns.
 
Not all cars are similar, in fact they have more differences than guns, such as horsepower differences, cornering, acceleration, torque, weight(important in an accident), etc. The point is that my rights aren't based on my needs.

We don't care what you consider a right, and neither did the founding fathers, which is why the second amendment exists to keep those who would violate the naturally ocurring right to self defense by limiting our options in weapons.




Why would you want to limit people's rights? Do you have a compelling reason that does not violate the necessary and proper test?

False, you are incorrectly assigning results to the law, machine guns were legal in the eighteen hundreds(Gatling gun) and the murder rate is still less than 10 people by legally owned machine guns.

Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.

and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.

and of course gatling guns don't kill many people :p they are f-ing huge.
 
Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.
Once again our rights don't depend on your personal feelings about them, but your opinion is of concern to me because you have a vote and are apparantly more than happy to surrender my rights to make yourself feel safer.

and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.
Crime rates go up when people are easier targets, gun control countries see the statistically largest increases in crime.

and of course gatling guns don't kill many people :p they are f-ing huge.
?????????
 
Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.

and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.

and of course gatling guns don't kill many people :p they are f-ing huge.


Nerv14...this is going to sound like a personal attack on the surface, but I don't mean it that way.

To all available evidence you are extremely (one is tempted to say utterly) ignorant on all aspects of firearms, both the technical, the practical, the political, the criminology (use of, deterrence effect, and defensive use), and the historical.

Yet, you esteem your own personal opinion on firearms so highly you place it above the Founders and the Constitution.

An apt comparison, would be if I wanted to regulate and oversee all brain surgery in the USA, determining what proceedures were necessary and desireable, which would be covered under insurance and which wouldn't, etc...when I am not an M.D. and know virtually nothing about brain surgery.

To be perfectly honest, having such a strong opinion on a subject, upon which your lack of knowlege seems all but infinite, is quite incredible (and not in a good way).

I suggest you return to square 1: discard all your opinions first, then proceed to get educated on the subject. Learn the difference between a Remington 700, an AR15, a SAW and a HMG. Read several books on the subject, written from both pro- and anti- positions. Study the statistics, from multiple sources... the Kleck study may prove very intresting, when you realize that every study on the subject reveals that guns are used many times more often to prevent crimes than in any sort of homicide. Go to a range that rents out firearms and shoot a few...I'd suggest starting with a 22 rifle and working up to Glocks and AR's.

Visit a gun store several times and talk to the people there. Get some direct personal knowlege about people who own guns instead of what the news media says.

Finally, take a walk after dark through the worst part of a major city... and ask yourself if you wouldn't feel better if you were armed.

Then your opinion will have something behind it, rather than being based on a near-total lack of understanding.

Again, I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack, it isn't intended as such... but I simply could not go on without pointing out how unwise it is to have such an extreme opinion on a subject of which you appear to know nothing.

G.
 
Nerv14...this is going to sound like a personal attack on the surface, but I don't mean it that way.

To all available evidence you are extremely (one is tempted to say utterly) ignorant on all aspects of firearms, both the technical, the practical, the political, the criminology (use of, deterrence effect, and defensive use), and the historical.

Yet, you esteem your own personal opinion on firearms so highly you place it above the Founders and the Constitution.

An apt comparison, would be if I wanted to regulate and oversee all brain surgery in the USA, determining what proceedures were necessary and desireable, which would be covered under insurance and which wouldn't, etc...when I am not an M.D. and know virtually nothing about brain surgery.

To be perfectly honest, having such a strong opinion on a subject, upon which your lack of knowlege seems all but infinite, is quite incredible (and not in a good way).

I suggest you return to square 1: discard all your opinions first, then proceed to get educated on the subject. Learn the difference between a Remington 700, an AR15, a SAW and a HMG. Read several books on the subject, written from both pro- and anti- positions. Study the statistics, from multiple sources... the Kleck study may prove very intresting, when you realize that every study on the subject reveals that guns are used many times more often to prevent crimes than in any sort of homicide. Go to a range that rents out firearms and shoot a few...I'd suggest starting with a 22 rifle and working up to Glocks and AR's.

Visit a gun store several times and talk to the people there. Get some direct personal knowlege about people who own guns instead of what the news media says.

Finally, take a walk after dark through the worst part of a major city... and ask yourself if you wouldn't feel better if you were armed.

Then your opinion will have something behind it, rather than being based on a near-total lack of understanding.

Again, I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack, it isn't intended as such... but I simply could not go on without pointing out how unwise it is to have such an extreme opinion on a subject of which you appear to know nothing.

G.

Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.

I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.
 
I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.

"illegal high lethal rating weapons" do not exist. There are only legal and illegal weapons.

As far as firearms are concerned, you can achieve the same lethality with a bolt action rifle as you could a fully automatic rifle.

Your biggest issue is that you seem to think that just because something is unnecessary no one should be able to own it. That's why I brought up the SUV point. It is not necessary to have a larger than life vehicle such as an SUV when one could use a minivan for the same purpose. A firearm is the same in that you could accomplish all of your goals with many interchangeable firearms, none of them are completely necessary in this day and age, but our rights do not depend on necessity. That includes our right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if you can show me positive statistics where fully automatic weapons being removed from an area (from law abiding citizens) reduced crime, I would love to see that.

I'll give you an example of a place where fully automatic weapons do NOT effect the crime rate. Oregon. It is an FFL3 state. I suppose people there are afraid that the person next door with a fully automatic Uzi is going to annihilate their family before they can pick up a gun? Or are they no more concerned with that than the neighborhood crazy old man with a shotgun breaking down their door and throwing buckshot at them?
 
Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.

You're going about it wrong already. A firearm does nothing by itself without the projectile and human intent and operation.

One bullet can and will kill. Likewise some people are shot multiple times and survive. This all comes down to the bullet and the shooter, not so much the weapon itself.

For example, a person shot with a fully metal jacketed bullet that penetrates them completely is more than likely to survive (that is if no vital organs are penetrated or destroyed) yet a person shot with a hollow point or non jacketed bullet is likely to die even if he/she survives the initial shooting. The lead poisoning will get to them eventually.

Also, someone shot with a forward tumbling round is likely to be critically injured whereas someone shot with a non tumbling bullet has a better chance of complete piercing.

Someone shot with a smaller caliber faster moving round is likely to keep moving where someone shot with a larger caliber and slower moving bullet is likely to spasm if not be completely knocked off their feet.

I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.

What do you say to sport shooters, hunters, collector, and various other weapon owners when their guns are now banned? "Sorry, but I don't like the fact that you own XXXXXX"?
 
Last edited:
Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.
I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.

Okay, we really really need to start at square one.

People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.

A very determined man with some common household chemicals and a little knowlege can kill far more people than any one man with an automatic firearm. Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.

In the Phillipines, there was (maybe still is) a practice called amok. This is when someone, typically but not always a Philipino Muslim, often but not always a skilled exponent of the island's blade-arts of escrima/kali/arnis, runs into a crowd of people with a machete, chopping off body parts. They are said to be in a state of killing frenzy such that they have to be shot repeatedly to stop them. Some have racked up body counts the Columbine killers would envy before being gunned down.... with just a machete, which for them is a tool for cutting cane.

Aum Shin Ryo (a Japanese extremist cult) unleashed homebrew sarin nerve gas in a subway, attempting to kill hundreds of people. They killed a few and sickened many, as they didn't quite have all their ducks in a row.

People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.

In the hands of a person determined to kill, a brick is a very lethal weapon.
In the hands of someone unwilling to kill, a .50 machine gun is a steel paperweight.

G.
 
Last edited:
Okay, we really really need to start at square one.

People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.

A very determined man with some common household chemicals and a little knowlege can kill far more people than any one man with an automatic firearm. Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.

In the Phillipines, there was (maybe still is) a practice called amok. This is when someone, typically but not always a Philipino Muslim, often but not always a skilled exponent of the island's blade-arts of escrima/kali/arnis, runs into a crowd of people with a machete, chopping off body parts. They are said to be in a state of killing frenzy such that they have to be shot repeatedly to stop them. Some have racked up body counts the Columbine killers would envy before being gunned down.... with just a machete, which for them is a tool for cutting cane.

Aum Shin Ryo (a Japanese extremist cult) unleashed homebrew sarin nerve gas in a subway, attempting to kill hundreds of people. They killed a few and sickened many, as they didn't quite have all their ducks in a row.

People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.

In the hands of a person determined to kill, a brick is a very lethal weapon.
In the hands of someone unwilling to kill, a .50 machine gun is a steel paperweight.

G.

Your example with the machete attack isn't something that any normal crazy person can do to murder. Most people would collapse after a few shots when they start swinging with the sword. Also, many people who would possibly kill with an automatic weapon may not be able to actually use some sword for the same mass murder.

I really hate to repeat myself, but I have said countless times that I don't want to ban all guns (and possibly I won't want to ban any if I get more info on the subject). If someone wants to kill someone else, then they will find a way to do that.

However, my main view is that specifically, weapons that allow someone who is deranged to kill many people at once should possibly be outlawed.
Sure, if someone is insane they can use a car to kill many people. However, that doesn't allow them to kill any large group of people that they want, and cars also have a huge benefit to society.

Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want. Those guns also don't seem to have any other benefits to society that other guns may be able to provide.

Please just respond to that so we can not repeat discussions...


I do need to get more information about how dangerous certain weapons are and the effects of gun control though.
 
Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want. Those guns also don't seem to have any other benefits to society that other guns may be able to provide.

The benefit a rapid-fire weapon provides is the ability to deter tyrannical politicians.

What greater benefit is there?

Considering that the original arguments against these weapons was based on convenience store robberies, and almost all such hold-ups are done with cheap pistols, and you can see that the desire to ban the guns comes before any semi-rational excuse is thought up.

So you should ask yourself, since the guns targeted for control by the politicians aren't relevant to the kinds of crime they're pretending to want to eliminate, why are the politicians really doing this.

Really, you should study that and come up with a real reason, instead of being yet another mouthpeice for the enemies of the republic.

Needless to say, this weekend LAPD arrested a guy wanted for more than thirty murders in the 1970's. Naturally, that guy did not use guns.

There are plenty of serial killers with much higher body counts than these little boys with their guns, so it's not like the guns are being used to do anything exceptional.
 
Last edited:
Your example with the machete attack isn't something that any normal crazy person can do to murder. Most people would collapse after a few shots when they start swinging with the sword. Also, many people who would possibly kill with an automatic weapon may not be able to actually use some sword for the same mass murder.

How about the Tim McVeigh example? Shall we ban fertilizer and diesel fuel? Those were the primary components of his bomb that took out the building in OKC and killed 168 people...more than any ten shooters put together. My point is you can't stop mass-murder by banning weapons, and most mass-murderers don't simply "snap", snatch up a handy gun and start killing...they PLAN ahead.


However, my main view is that specifically, weapons that allow someone who is deranged to kill many people at once should possibly be outlawed.
Sure, if someone is insane they can use a car to kill many people. However, that doesn't allow them to kill any large group of people that they want, and cars also have a huge benefit to society.

Guns are a huge benefit to society. Every year, around 30,000 die from gunshot wounds, including all cases: accident, self-defense, suicide, law-enforcement action, and violent crime. Depending on what study you believe, however, guns are used to PREVENT violent crime anywhere from 90,000 times per year to over 2 million times per year, usually with no shots fired at all.

Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want. Those guns also don't seem to have any other benefits to society that other guns may be able to provide.

Okay. FULL-auto guns are already heavily restricted, and legally-owned Full-autos are virtually never a factor in mass murders. There is no reason to ban them entirely to fulfill your premise as they are not a factor. Almost all full-autos used to commit violent crime were illegally obtained...and laws don't stop criminals (hint: they don't obey them.)

You know what would be effective against a mass-murderer armed with a full-auto weapon? One or two armed citizens in the area responding to his actions by shooting him dead. It happens on occasion, too.



I do need to get more information about how dangerous certain weapons are and the effects of gun control though.

My friend, that is exactly what I was trying to do. The first thing you have to recognize is that it ain't the arrow that's dangerous, it's the Indian. I can say that since I'm half-Cherokee :mrgreen:

People are dangerous. The only effective way to prevent dangerous people from harming the innocent, is for other dangerous people to stop them before they rack up much of a body count. This is why I have a concealed-carry permit and pack a gun.

The effects of gun control are easily seen in Washington DC, Chicago, NYC and other major cities: honest citizens are disarmed and helpless in the face of armed thugs, who get whatever guns they want despite what the law says.
In a previous gun-control thread I put up links and quotes about how crime is lower in states with Shall-issue concealed carry permits, and higher in cities with draconian gun-control. Search it up and have a look.



G.
 
How about the Tim McVeigh example? Shall we ban fertilizer and diesel fuel?

When I buy certain photo chemicals I have to register with the FBI and DHS. I really have no problem with this.
 
Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want.

A semi-automatic rifle could be used to same effect, as could a shotgun.
 
When I buy certain photo chemicals I have to register with the FBI and DHS. I really have no problem with this.

Yup. I have a farmer friend who buys fertilizer by the ton, and diesel fuel by the 500-gallon tank. Lots of farmers do, and those are the primary components for an OKC bomb. The information about how to build such bombs is widely known and easily available....illustrating the point that banning substances or items won't stop mass murder. (If you ban fertilizer or diesel, the price of a head of lettuce is going to be $200. :mrgreen:)

Personally, I get PO'd when I have to show ID for buying cold medicine. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I guess I'd have to say no to the poll.

I just bought an AK-47. It's a semi-automatic and thus legal. Do I need it? No. So why did I buy it? One, because I feared that unless I got it now, I might never be able to get one. Two, my gut tells me something is brewing out there that may overflow.

If we have another terrorist attack (which I think is very likely) I don't know how the country will react. What if it's bigger then 9/11? What if it's nuclear? What if it's cyber and shuts down power or communications?

One can play out many situations. They say there is only 3 days worth of food in the stores. If power or communications goes, can the stores be resupplied? If not, what does the puboic do with a shortage of food.

If there's an attack, do middle eastern looking people get our sympathy or do we start to look at them as targets? If it's targets, things could get messy.

What if the tea party movement grows and keeps getting ignored? What if our elected officials continue their arrogance and ignore what the people are saying? What happens when China quits buying our paper (like now) and we have to print money to monetize the deb? Will we get back to 15-20% inflation plus double-digit unemployment?

Lot's of scary unknowns. I can defend my home from a burglar with my 9mm. But if I have to defned my home from a mob, I want more firepower.

I'm probably paranoid, but my Boy Scout training taught me to be prepared. And my third reason for getting the rifle is that it look like a good investment. AK-47s are getting harder to find and the prices keep going up. The guy at the gun store thanks Obama every day because business is booming.

My only dilemma now is how much ammo I need to have.
 
I'm probably paranoid, but my Boy Scout training taught me to be prepared.
This is exactly correct.
It is always better to have and not need than to need and not have.

My only dilemma now is how much ammo I need to have.
I figure 500 or so rounds for anything chambered in a standard US military round (9mm 45ACP .223 .308 .30-06) and 12 gauge, as this will always be the most common ammo. Chances are, before you go through that 500 rounds, you will either have captured more, or you will be dead.
 
This is exactly correct.
It is always better to have and not need than to need and not have.


I figure 500 or so rounds for anything chambered in a standard US military round (9mm 45ACP .223 .308 .30-06) and 12 gauge, as this will always be the most common ammo. Chances are, before you go through that 500 rounds, you will either have captured more, or you will be dead.


I'd go with a couple thousand just to be safe. You need to practice occasionally to keep those skills sharp.

Now, if we're talking match-grade ammo that's a different kettle of fish...but then again match-grade is pretty much a waste in an AK anyway. :mrgreen:

G.
 
I also thought 500 rounds would do - but as a stash. Range ammo would be over and above that. But at home, I've got a little over 500 rounds. I also agree that if I have to use all that ammo, I'm likely to be dead before I'm out of bullets.
 
Now, if we're talking match-grade ammo that's a different kettle of fish...but then again match-grade is pretty much a waste in an AK anyway. :mrgreen:
Never mind that there IS no 'match grade' ammo for an AK...
:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom