• 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!

[W:711] 2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

swing_voter said:
Pro-gun people need enact some common sense gun legislation. That way the people can see they're trying to solve the problem at least.

The number of anti-gun people is going to rise and rise and eventually, all guns will be banned.
Click to expand...

You mean like a law requiring foreign and domestic mass murderers to use bombs, arson, aircraft, vehicles and poison instead of rifles because they can kill many, many times more people that way?
 
No rational person wants to force mass murderers to use methods other than guns.
 
iguanaman said:
Oh there will be a bill coming from the House soon. We will see if it gets a vote.
Click to expand...

If there is one it won't be voted on by the Senate, that is a given.
 
swing_voter said:
Pro-gun people need enact some common sense gun legislation. That way the people can see they're trying to solve the problem at least.

The number of anti-gun people is going to rise and rise and eventually, all guns will be banned.
Click to expand...

That sir, is an intolerable act

Just saying
 
iguanaman said:
Sorry but those numbers are all wrong....

new-laws3.png
Click to expand...

Literally the first one on the list directly supports one of the points I mentioned. One has different numbers (heartbeat, but I already provided my source for that). And none of the others are any of the points I mentioned. So nice fail.
 
2/3rd is quite a lot. I wonder of those, how many think that an assault weapon is a machine gun.
 
iguanaman said:
Oh there will be a bill coming from the House soon. We will see if it gets a vote.
Click to expand...

We know it won't, the only way it ever happens is if the Dems will all of Congress and the WH.
 
Nap said:
#1 You do understand that there is no functional difference between an M1 Garand and the typical semi-automatic 30-06 hunting rifle correct? I'm conflating the terms Military weapons and Assault Rifle because that is what they are. Civilians are banned from owning Assault Rifles which makes them explicitly military/police weapons, however semi-automatic weapons make up the vast majority of all modern firearms owned by the public. An M4A1 or M16 would be considered "military weapons" where as a semi-automatic AR15 is specifically made for and sold to the civilian public.

#2 No, it isn't complicated at all. Example:
I manufacture a semi-automatic rifle that has a folding stock, detachable magazine, and pistol grip. It would be illegal under the 94 ban, to get around this I simply remove the folding stock and pistol grip options and magically the gun is legal to sell. This is one reason the build your own kits became popular as it completely circumvented any kind of nonsense Democrats try to pass, you simply buy the individual pieces and assemble it at home and there isn't anything that can be done about it other than the outright ban of semi-automatics, and even then new concepts will develop to replace them. You will be fighting an endless and unwinnable battle (especially with the rise of 3d printing) going after guns.
Click to expand...

#1 Irrelevant comments which does not address the fact of what I said. And that is you claimed the pro-gun crowd of not knowing much about guns and then you made a comment about the military weapons which is factually incorrect.

#2 If you manufacture and FN/FAL you can try to change whatever you want but it is still banned according to the 1994 law. Read again the part A of the law

A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as--
``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
``(iv) Colt AR-15;
``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
``(vii) Steyr AUG;
``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to)
the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;


All the things you mention about pistol grip and the rest are in section B

Do not tell me that only one side can adapt but the law cannot adapt to those who want to circumvent it.
 
joko104 said:
No rational person wants to force mass murderers to use methods other than guns.
Click to expand...

No rational person wants to make it easier for mass murderers to kill people.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
2/3rd is quite a lot. I wonder of those, how many think that an assault weapon is a machine gun.
Click to expand...

When devastated parents cry out “assault weapons killed my child” the dumbest response on the goddamned planet is “actually that was a carbine”
 
Deuce said:
When devastated parents cry out “assault weapons killed my child” the dumbest response on the goddamned planet is “actually that was a carbine”
Click to expand...

Even if its an accurate response?

vzFeoch.jpg
 
PoS said:
Even if its an accurate response?

vzFeoch.jpg
Click to expand...

Correct, it’s a response from someone who is either a monster or somewhere on the spectrum.
 
Deuce said:
Correct, it’s a response from someone who is either a monster or somewhere on the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Well as long as no one brings it up with the victim's relatives (and odds are it wont happen), then its okay.
 
pamak said:
#1 Irrelevant comments which does not address the fact of what I said. And that is you claimed the pro-gun crowd of not knowing much about guns and then you made a comment about the military weapons which is factually incorrect.

#2 If you manufacture and FN/FAL you can try to change whatever you want but it is still banned according to the 1994 law. Read again the part A of the law

A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as--
``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
``(iv) Colt AR-15;
``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
``(vii) Steyr AUG;
``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to)
the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;


All the things you mention about pistol grip and the rest are in section B

Do not tell me that only one side can adapt but the law cannot adapt to those who want to circumvent it.
Click to expand...

1 - So because the military used the M1 Garand that makes it a "Military" weapon? If that is the case then the AR-15 is not a military weapon as the semi-automatic AR-15 was specifically marketed for civilians.

2 - So what if a FAL is banned if I can buy some other semi-automatic rifle in the same caliber? If the capabilities are the same what difference does it make?
 
Nap said:
1 - So because the military used the M1 Garand that makes it a "Military" weapon? If that is the case then the AR-15 is not a military weapon as the semi-automatic AR-15 was specifically marketed for civilians.

2 - So what if a FAL is banned if I can buy some other semi-automatic rifle in the same caliber? If the capabilities are the same what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

This is the sort of “um, actually” gun nerd stuff I’ve been talking about
 
Deuce said:
This is the sort of “um, actually” gun nerd stuff I’ve been talking about
Click to expand...

In order to have a reasonable discussion it is important to actually have some knowledge of what it is you are discussing. If you don't even understand that a semi-automatic fires 1 bullet per pull of the trigger then it is impossible to have any progress on the subject as you are forming your opinions based on emotion rather than facts. This is how stupid laws like the 94 assault weapons ban get passed that have no impact other than to annoy gun owners.
 
Just for the record, no soldier carries a semi-auto rifle at any time much less when assaulting an enemy position.
 
The assault weapon ban won't do anything to make us any safer. All you need to do is look at the FBI UCR

Rifles of all kinds used in Homicides: Rifles 2012-298 2013-285 2014-258 2015-258 2016-374

So assault rifles are used in > 1% of all homicides!
Why aren't the criminals held accountable for their criminal actions? We just had 6 Philadelphia police officers shot by a felon in possession of firearms. The guy has been arrested about 12 times to include illegal possession of a firearm.
Why is he walking the streets? He should be in jail. But if we ban some weapon everything will be great? Ban the criminal not an object.

Knives or cutting instruments are used in homicides 3times more each year that assault rifles!

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 4
 
jamesrage said:
1. I have to wonder how many of those poll respondents can actually define what an assault weapon is. Because most anti-2nd amendment trash won't be able to tell people the difference between a semiautomatic firearm defined as an assault weapon and one that isn't.So I doubt most people taking the poll would either. Usually when asked the difference or what defines an assault most anti-2nd amendment trash tend to whine about semantics and quibbling as though that is somehow an excuse to be ignorant piece of **** on the subject they want banned.

2. I also have to wonder if asked how would support a ban on semiautomatic firearms how many would respond with yes. Because assault weapon ban is code for banning semiautomatic firearms. So I doubt any informed firearm owner would actually support a ban on so called assault weapons.

3. A poll of a 1000 people no way represents the whole entire population of the poll.

4.Did the people conducting the poll actually verified that the poll respondents actually have firearms or did they just take their word for it? Because I doubt a firearm owner would support a ban on semiautomatic firearms. I am sure there might be a handful of firearm owners who don't really know the difference and probably inherited a gun from someone.
Click to expand...

The "polls" are pure propaganda. Nobody agrees 97% with anything. You couldn't get 97% of Americans to agree that today is Friday!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The assault weapon ban won't do anything to make us any safer. All you need to do is look at the FBI UCR

Rifles of all kinds used in Homicides: Rifles 2012-298 2013-285 2014-258 2015-258 2016-374

So assault rifles are used in > 1% of all homicides!
Why aren't the criminals held accountable for their criminal actions? We just had 6 Philadelphia police officers shot by a felon in possession of firearms. The guy has been arrested about 12 times to include illegal possession of a firearm.
Why is he walking the streets? He should be in jail. But if we ban some weapon everything will be great? Ban the criminal not an object.

Knives or cutting instruments are used in homicides 3times more each year that assault rifles!

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 4
Click to expand...

If we banned assault weapons and mandated universal background checks then criminals could never get guns. We did it successfully for drugs and we can.......


....wait



It didn't work before?


Well this time we'll do it right and it will be sure to work!
 
Deuce said:
Correct, it’s a response from someone who is either a monster or somewhere on the spectrum.
Click to expand...

I can't tell whether you're being serious or not. Are you agreeing that one of those weapons should be legal and that the other should be banned?
 
I don't trust these numbers. Fox News, with the exception of the prime time and Fox And Friends people, aren't what I call the most conservative. They're more moderate, and no, the vast majority of the country is NOT moderate. Most people choose one side or the other. Fox News is simply more objective but still has it's biases. Guns are one of them. Fun fact: the guy that runs Fox News IS a Leftist, so you can't play the "FOX NEWS IS RAN BY RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS" card. Besides, Fox News polling is only a little better than some others, but that's not saying much. Even if they are accurate, it's because the public has been EXTREMELY misinformed about guns and gun laws. The media is so infamous for this kind of information. As two examples, there are people today who STILL believe Chick-Fil-A doesn't serve homosexuals and STILL believe that Hobby Lobby doesn't help pay, under their insurance plan, contraceptives (only four that they don't cover because they're linked to abortion). The media has never denounced either one of those claims nor have plans to do so anytime soon because both companies' beliefs do not line up with their's. Either way, I would take these numbers with a lot of salt.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL The gun used in Gilroy was bought in Nevada 3 weeks before the shooting. A Federal ban is what is needed.
Click to expand...

Honestly, do you believe that a national ban on semi-auto rifles will prevent mass shootings? Do you really believe that those weapons will suddenly become unavailable?
 
Nap said:
1 - So because the military used the M1 Garand that makes it a "Military" weapon? If that is the case then the AR-15 is not a military weapon as the semi-automatic AR-15 was specifically marketed for civilians.

2 - So what if a FAL is banned if I can buy some other semi-automatic rifle in the same caliber? If the capabilities are the same what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

#1 The M1 Garand was one of the most iconic semiautomatic rifles which was used for decades after WWII by many different armies in the world. I served in the Greek Army, and in 1992 the M1 Garand was one of the first weapons we used since it was customary in the boot camp to use old weapons to teach the basics of shooting. And the above make the the M1 Garand a military weapon even thought it is semiautomatic rifle with no select fire which contradicts your initial claim

Originally Posted by Nap
#1 They aren't military weapons, they are civilian semi-automatic rifles. Military weapons are select fire weapons that are already banned.

#2 IF the capabilities are the same it would not matter. But you can certainly have laws that limit such capabilities. This is why you see details about different characteristics of guns and laws about different capacity of magazines and so on.
 
Lutherf said:
Honestly, do you believe that a national ban on semi-auto rifles will prevent mass shootings? Do you really believe that those weapons will suddenly become unavailable?
Click to expand...

I honestly believe that AR-15's and their ilk are weapons of war whose purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time. I also believe that owning them emboldens and even entices the psychopaths who use them almost exclusively for that purpose. There data that suggest that when we had a national ban there were less of them. You have nothing to prove otherwise.

RESULTS
Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8–88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R2 = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–0.39).
CONCLUSION
Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Observational, level II/IV.
Click to expand...

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994–2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom