• 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!

The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Dumb Idea Pushed By Dumb People

JoeTrumps

JoeTrumps

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,346
Location
Memphis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sean Davis is a well thought out conservative who always has good points to make. so I read this and think it has credence.


Assault Weapons Ban: A Dumb Idea Pushed By Dumb People

It’s important to define what the previous federal ban covered and how it defined an “assault weapon.” The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

That’s it. Not one of those cosmetic features has anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires.

A collapsible stock does not make a rifle more deadly. Nor does a pistol grip. Nor does a bayonet mount. Nor does a flash suppressor. And for heaven’s sake, good luck finding, let alone purchasing, 40mm explosive grenades for your rifle-mounted grenade launcher.

The law expired in September of 2004. Did rifle murders skyrocket? Not so much. Quite the opposite. In 2014, the most recent year for which detailed FBI data are available, rifles were used in 248 murders. And not only are rifles used in far fewer murders over a decade following the expiration of the 1994 gun ban, they’re also used in a smaller percentage of homicides. In 2003, when the gun ban was in full effect, rifles were used in nearly 3 percent of murders. In 2014, they were used in barely 2 percent.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm just saying I don't think an assault ban is the answer.
 
Last edited:
JoeTrumps said:
Sean Davis is a well thought out conservative who always has good points to make. so I read this and think it has credence.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm just saying I don't think an assault ban is the answer.
Click to expand...

So then the real question is, what is the Republican Senate, Republican house and Republican presidency doing about it?
 
Then, why are these weapons the weapon of choice for mass murderers?
 
JoeTrumps said:
Sean Davis is a well thought out conservative who always has good points to make. so I read this and think it has credence.


Assault Weapons Ban: A Dumb Idea Pushed By Dumb People




I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm just saying I don't think an assault ban is the answer.
Click to expand...


You think he makes a good argument?

Those are the same old, discredited talking points that we see after EVERY new mass shooting in this country. So forgive me if I surmise that your stated personal ideology has a lot to do with why you think so highly of Sean Davis' opinions.
 
Nap said:
Lol, Semiautomatic assault handgun and assault shotgun.
Click to expand...

I did say the link was from a anti-2nd amendment website.
 
The only thing that is dumb are stupid right wing posts like this. There is no reason someone needs and assault rifle. Not for hunting, and not for defense. It's a weapon of war, sole purpose is to kill the enemy. It's used to slaughter so many people. There is no reason it should be legal, and so easy to obtain, just because some rednecks have a hard on for big guns and they like going out murdering animals

It's the typical "pretend I"m making a legit argument" when its complete BS and a giant leap. LIke claiming handguns are worse and kill more. THat may be true, but its dishonest to claim that, people are getting slaughtered in absurd numbers that wouldn't be feasible with simply a hand gun.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to the appropriate forum.
 
Means, motive, and opportunity.

Those are the three criteria for any crime, including mass murder.

Which do you think is the most important to address?
 
Another, "Oh noes, save our assault guns," argument.

Thoughts and prayers time.
 
PhysicalRemoval said:
Why are the locations of these mass murderers always gun free zones?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Why don't the Republicans show us how safe gun-laden places can be by making their next GOP convention have no restriction whatsoever on the kind of firearms people can bring in there. It would be the safest place on the planet then, wouldn't it? You know what they say: an armed society is a polite society, right?
 
Sampson Simpson said:
The only thing that is dumb are stupid right wing posts like this. There is no reason someone needs and assault rifle. Not for hunting, and not for defense. It's a weapon of war, sole purpose is to kill the enemy. It's used to slaughter so many people. There is no reason it should be legal, and so easy to obtain, just because some rednecks have a hard on for big guns and they like going out murdering animals

It's the typical "pretend I"m making a legit argument" when its complete BS and a giant leap. LIke claiming handguns are worse and kill more. THat may be true, but its dishonest to claim that, people are getting slaughtered in absurd numbers that wouldn't be feasible with simply a hand gun.
Click to expand...

You do realize the AR-15 is not a big gun right? It is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market and function no differently than any other semiautomatic rifle on the market.

Actually, multiple handguns would be a much easier scenario to kill an absurd number of people. Especially if you can corner a significant number of people into an area with only 1 escape route. It is much easier to conceal multiple handguns allowing you the element of surprise.
 
Ya I lean left to center on most things,the 2nd Amendment is in place, and I do not want to see folks loose their right to own. We all know the solutions offered by the left. I would be interested to know what Conservatives feel would be real steps to solving this issue. I am open to most ideas without eroding folks right to own.
 
ataraxia said:
I don't know. Why don't the Republicans show us how safe gun-laden places can be by making their next GOP convention have no restriction whatsoever on the kind of firearms people can bring in there. It would be the safest place on the planet then, wouldn't it? You know what they say: an armed society is a polite society, right?
Click to expand...

Sorry, property rights, LOL True again.

How about the DNC total disarm their convention? To show how much better and safer we will all be?
 
yankintx said:
Ya I lean left to center on most things,the 2nd Amendment is in place, and I do not want to see folks loose their right to own. We all know the solutions offered by the left. I would be interested to know what Conservatives feel would be real steps to solving this issue. I am open to most ideas without eroding folks right to own.
Click to expand...

I believe the first step is to finally drop the silly idea that "gun free zones" will deter someone with the intent to murder someone from bringing a gun to an area. I think the best compromise that both sides should be able to get behind is a CCW program with a good training regiment. This would help ease the fears of those on the left thinking that any nutbag around them could be carrying, while giving those on the right the means to protect themselves. I know neither side will like this type of deal but it is better than the alternative of doing nothing.
 
PhysicalRemoval said:
Sorry, property rights, LOL True again.
Click to expand...

Well then I'm sure Wayne LaPierre will be happy to host the next no-guns-restricted GOP convention at the NRA convention hall next time. Wouldn't he?

How about the DNC total disarm their convention? To show how much better and safer we will all be?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? They already do that.
 
ataraxia said:
Well then I'm sure Wayne LaPierre will be happy to host the next no-guns-restricted GOP convention at the NRA convention hall next time. Wouldn't he?



What are you talking about? They already do that.
Click to expand...


That Hall only can only 2000 people, it would not fit anyone where close to the total number.

Nope, everyone. Cops, Security, everyone.
 
PhysicalRemoval said:
Sorry, property rights, LOL True again.

How about the DNC total disarm their convention? To show how much better and safer we will all be?
Click to expand...
Right wing Logic

If mass murder occurs,
Was it a Muslim?
If yes --->Travel Ban
If no, Was it a Mexican?
If yes--->Build Wall
If no, Was it a Black?
If yes---->More prisons
If no, Was it a white person?
If yes, ---->Send Thoughts and Prayers
 
jamesrage said:
They are not.

Even this link from a anti-2nd amendment site says that most mass murders are done with handguns.
Mother Jones releases data of US Mass Shootings during 1982-2015 | The News Teller
View attachment 67228645
Click to expand...

Is there some way to view the chart from say 1989 - 2018. The AR-15 became mass produced and introduced to the consumer market in 1989. So the previous 7 years would not add much validity to the quoted stats above. And the last 3 years would certainly be germaine...Just saying
 
Nap said:
I believe the first step is to finally drop the silly idea that "gun free zones" will deter someone with the intent to murder someone from bringing a gun to an area. I think the best compromise that both sides should be able to get behind is a CCW program with a good training regiment. This would help ease the fears of those on the left thinking that any nutbag around them could be carrying, while giving those on the right the means to protect themselves. I know neither side will like this type of deal but it is better than the alternative of doing nothing.
Click to expand...

To expand on that some. I believe education, gun safety, and common sense in some sort of public safety campaign. Over time these campaigns could reduce some deaths by firearms. The Goverment did Similiar campaigns for drunk driving which did have an impact on public awareness as the DUI rates decreased. The NRA needs to step up to the plate more in educating the public. I know they offer classes only because I asked. They need to out reach more into communities. I believe we all, no matter our political lean are very alarmed by the frequency of these occurrences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom