• 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!

What is an assault rifle?

What is an assault rifle?

  • Any semi-automatic rifle (fires one shot every time the trigger is pulled)

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • A semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the features in the Brady bill.(see OP post)

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • A rifle that will keep firing bullets as long as you hold down the trigger.

    Votes: 36 64.3%

  • A rifle that will fire 3 bullet every time you squeeze the trigger.

    Votes: 20 35.7%

  • I do not know.

    Votes: 11 19.6%
  • Total voters
    56
Thrilla;106128031[QUOTE said:
interesting words...."unusual or dangerous"...
assault weapons and hi-cap mags fail to live up to that unofficial test.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, the 1994 - 2004 ban would have been successfully challenged in court. No one could prove your claim.
 
teachix4jesus said:
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

careful.. the anti-gun side of the argument is chock full of people who believe the only "real" violations of the 2nd amendment is an outright ban on all firearms..... nothing else counts as a violation to them.

it's akin to arguing that cutting the vocal cords out of your throat is the only "real" violation of free speech rights
 
Catawba said:
If that were the case, the 1994 - 2004 ban would have been successfully challenged in court. No one could prove your claim.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a .22 and a .223?
 
Thrilla said:
careful.. the anti-gun side of the argument is chock full of people who believe the only "real" violations of the 2nd amendment is an outright ban on all firearms..... nothing else counts as a violation to them.

it's akin to arguing that cutting the vocal cords out of your throat is the only "real" violation of free speech rights
Click to expand...


Link to a single post I have ever made stating I want a ban on all guns? If you can't, then you Sir, are a liar!
 
Catawba said:
Link to a single post I have ever made stating I want a ban on all guns? If you can't, then you Sir, are a liar!
Click to expand...
What does the AR in AR-15 stand for?
 
Jerry said:
First, I would like to sincerely thank you for posting an argument based on data. This topic has become so saturated with emotional hyperbole that it's very difficult for anyone to have a meaningful exchange anymore. Thank you also for using a credible source such as the University of Utah.....Utah in particular since it has the most desired CCW in the country (I'm taking the class for it next month). It seems like we 'gunnies' have to pull teeth to get any 'anti' to post any kind of source at all, and when an 'anti' is finally cornered into giving a source, they post something thin, biased and easily taken apart.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Jerry I appreciate that.

My concern regarding your source is not so much the small sample, but the manufactured cause-effect. If you are in a situation where you have to choose whether or not to use your gun, should you pull the trigger, you are not causing anyone else to commit suicide or a crime therefore. Your act is independent of their act, not a cause of their act. Your source correctly states that lawful gun ownership, gun crime and suicide were associated, but it then goes on to falsely state that one is caused by the other.
On firearm homicide: Your source does not distinguish between Justifiable Homicide and a crime. It's no secret that the whole point of having a gun in the home is to commit homicide legally with the gun. The point of gun ownership is to reduce crime, and that means sometimes committing Justifiable Homicide, lawful self-defense against a criminal, to kill that person.
Click to expand...
I'll have to look at that more closely and get back to you.

See also:
HarvardStudy: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
WouldBanning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some DomesticEvidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**
Click to expand...
Check this out....from your source above:

"....For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002.9

"....France has infinitely more gun ownership than Luxembourg, which nevertheless has a murder rate five times greater, though handguns are illegal and other types of guns sparse;....

Luxembourg 9.0/100K 2002
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...pU6iea&sig=AHIEtbTYXNt3RtKGFIYxKi1E_UszIv10HQ

Now compare it to the stats below....

Luxembourg 0.9/100K 2002
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...UibbkJ&sig=AHIEtbQSh0xwiTD31W526nnvz0mu5YgmcA

I'm sorry Jerry, but your source seems to have skewed the data to fit the author's pro-gun agenda. A simple mistake or typo is one thing, but the author compared Luxembourg's homicide rate to other countries that didn't ban guns several times in the study. The correct homicide rate for Luxembourg is 0.9/100K as evidenced in the second study (same study as the first) but continued to use the wrong rate in the charts. The only conclusion I can draw from that study is that the author's, Kates and Mauser are either dishonest or incompetent. Either way, it doesn't support the pro-gun position that a country with more guns is safer than one that has less. Imo, it's still inconclusive for both sides of the argument as far as backing it up with statistics. So, I'm still inclined to go with logic and empirical evidence that suggest less guns = less death and injuries.

On suicide: Suicide is not connected with firearms ownership. The presence or absence of a gun do not increase or decrease the suicide rate. Suicide is a socially based act, and when someone makes the decision to end their life, they use whatever is available. If there is no gun, they simply kill themselves another way. On this point, your source lied, by falsely stating that the gun causes suicide, which is quite a disappointing mistake for the pro-gun state of Utah to do.
Click to expand...
Australia has stats suggesting that after they impleted their gun-buy back program the suicide rate went down considerably...

Firearm suicides
Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total firearm deaths in Australia (more than three in four of all firearm deaths). In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 8850 firearm suicides (annual average 491.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 1726 firearm suicides, an annual average of 246.6. Figure 1E and table 3 indicate that while the rate of firearm suicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this more than doubled to 7.4% per year after the introduction of gun laws. The ratio of trend estimates differed statistically from 1 (no effect; p = 0.007). Again, we conclude that the decline in total firearm suicides accelerated after the introduction of the gun laws...."
Australia

..On the leading causes of death: Your source states that death buy a gun is one of the top-10 leading causes of death in the US. This is not a true statement according to data available from the CDC: You are 24.91 times more likely to simply trip over something and die then to die by any-kind of unintended gunshot.
Click to expand...
That doesn't negate the fact that death by gun is still one of the top 10 leading causes of death in the US and is running neck to neck with death by auto accidents for the last 3 years or so. Most of those gun deaths could have easily been prevented by the absence or easy access to a gun in the home of legitimate gun owners. Nevertheless even if you add the criteria for justifiable homicide that you mentioned, the self defense rate would still be much much lower than all the other gun death rates and undermining a real need or justification for self defense with a gun in a majority of homes.

First, it's insulting and offensive to label us 'righties'. I'm a Conservative, and Conservatives are not part of the GOP. We left the GOP 10 years ago (though DebatePolitics.com still hasn't changed the UserGroup icon to reflect that). The GOP is as much about big government nanny-state as the Left and will sell out any Conservative sympathizers as fast as Obama or Biden.
Click to expand...
Gun righty's = "gun rights" advocates. It's more expedient to write gun rightys but I'll try to use pro-gun when I can out of deference to you. People call me a lefty all the time...or worse, and since 2006 I think I've only said once what my affiliation is. The reason for that is because I don't fit any label's entire platform or agenda and I reserve the right to change my mind on any given issue when presented with credible evidence, facts or argument.

Here are my reform suggestions:
  • Require all firearms to be stored in a rated gun safe specifically designed for storing firearms, or disabled if the firearm is on display and the removed part stored in a rated safe.
  • Federal guidelines for CCW, just like a drivers license, to include knowledge and practical operating tests, just like a drivers license, which all 50 states are forced to honor, just like a drivers license. This would reasonably include basic firearms familiarity and orientation, a close-quarters-combat class (since most defensive gun shots are fired from 8-15 feet away from the criminal), fingerprints and background checked monthly for the entire life of the license (cost included in the license fee, just like the Utah CCW), and passport photo.
  • Eliminate arbitrary gun-free zones, to include public schools and gun-buster signs, except for the remaining 1% which would include ERs, court houses, voting stations, and places with a 'known hazard' such as above-ground fuel tanks or homes for the mentally unstable.
Click to expand...
That looks good to me. Except for:

Keep the gun-free zones, especially schools 1-12, but don't advertise with a gun buster sign (that's stupid)...and bars or anywhere alcohol is served. If gun owners are unfamiliar with the gun laws and where the gun free zones are then they shouldn't have a gun at all.

Bar all children and students under 18 from carrying or having access to a gun, period. Under adult supervision on private property or business....negotiable.

Guns should not be allowed on private property (including businesses) without the owner's permission.

Nix the required passport photo. A drivers license or equivalent photo ID should suffice.

Now good luck getting the NRA to agree a single one of our suggestions.
 
Catawba said:
Thrilla;106128031 If that were the case said:
for years, the NRA and other gun rights groups stayed away from the courts, but instead chose to focus on legislators ( a bad choice in my opinion)..... Heller and MacDonald changed all that and they are now back in the business of funding and helping court cases ( NRA was instrumental in the case that struck down Illinois gun ban)
the legal environment , in regards to 2nd amendment rights, is vastly different now than it was in 1994-2004... gun bans are falling by the wayside ( as unconstitutional) all the time now.


no one can prove my claim that that semiautomatic rifles are not unusual?... really?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thrilla said:
for years, the NRA and other gun rights groups stayed away from the courts, but instead chose to focus on legislators ( a bad choice in my opinion)..... Heller and MacDonald changed all that and they are now back in the business of funding and helping court cases ( NRA was instrumental in the case that struck down Illinois gun ban)
the legal environment , in regards to 2nd amendment rights, is vastly different now than it was in 1994-2004... gun bans are falling by the wayside ( as unconstitutional) all the time now.


no one can prove my claim that that semiautomatic rifles are not unusual?... really?
Click to expand...



Show me the bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines that have been ruled to be unconstitutional?
 
Moot said:
Keep the gun-free zones, especially schools 1-12, but don't advertise with a gun buster sign (that's stupid)...and bars or anywhere alcohol is served. If gun owners are unfamiliar with the gun laws and where the gun free zones are then they shouldn't have a gun at all.
Click to expand...
a few things on this idea here.

first.. in order for a ban to be enforceable on the property, the law requires signs to be posted in a conspicuous place ( the signs gotta be seen, or you can't successfully prosecute)
the law requires this sort of advertising, for good reason.

2nd, I'm not sure how anyone can honestly say that gun free zones have been successful... especially those surrounding a school....too many kids are dead and the whole gun free zone schtick didn't help matters one bit.. it prevented not one death.
we need to scrap failed policies and move on
 
Thrilla said:
a few things on this idea here.

first.. in order for a ban to be enforceable on the property, the law requires signs to be posted in a conspicuous place ( the signs gotta be seen, or you can't successfully prosecute) the law requires this sort of advertising, for good reason.

2nd, I'm not sure how anyone can honestly say that gun free zones have been successful... especially those surrounding a school....too many kids are dead and the whole gun free zone schtick didn't help matters one bit.. it prevented not one death.
we need to scrap failed policies and move on
Click to expand...
First, I don't need to put a sign up that says guns aren't allowed in my home or my business for that matter. So where's the law that says I have to?

Second, all gun free zones are successful until someone breaks the law. But isn't that the point of having a law so the perp can be arrested and prosecuted? Without the law then how can the perp be prosecuted? You seem to understand about the law regarding the no gun sign, so why not gun free zones? Do you really think a sign is going to make a difference to a criminal? Should banks and jewelry stores put up a no gun sign? lol doh

If anything this last massacre has proven it's that irresponsible legitimate gun owners are responsible letting guns get into the wrong hands. The Virginia Tech massacre has proven that NRA's lobbying efforts allowed a known mentally ill man buy a gun legally. The latter is what this thread is about, Thrilla.

I suggest you and Gie read the OP including the links provided before responding to a thread. In fact, it should be a law.
 
Originally Posted by Catawba
Show me the bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines that have been ruled to be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


Thrilla said:
no, I will not substantiate something I did not claim.

try reading my posts before you reply to them.
Click to expand...


Thrilla said:
the legal environment , in regards to 2nd amendment rights, is vastly different now than it was in 1994-2004... gun bans are falling by the wayside ( as unconstitutional) all the time now.
Click to expand...

:cool: ................
 
Catawba said:
:cool: ................
Click to expand...

Are you confused or something? Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Ever heard of Heller? Gun bans get struck down as unconstitutional all the time. And an AWB isn't a ban on any kind of gun, just accessories. You could still get a semi-auto AR-15 or pay the tax stamp for a full auto under the last one.
 
Lachean said:
You could still get a semi-auto AR-15 or pay the tax stamp for a full auto under the last one.
Click to expand...

I am happy you feel the ban created no hardship! :cool:
 
spud_meister said:
It's something the bad guys use. Good guys use pistols.
Click to expand...

right........

police-with-m4-rifle-guards-crowd-on-national-mall-thumb7977662.jpg
 
Catawba said:
Link to a single post I have ever made stating I want a ban on all guns? If you can't, then you Sir, are a liar!
Click to expand...

your habit of asking people to substantiate claims they didn't make grows tiresome.

fly away thing, you bother me.
 
Catawba said:
:cool: ................
Click to expand...

well lookie here... Cat think all gun bans are assault weapons and high capacity mag bans.....

explain your ignorance Cat... why do you feel that "gun ban" is equal to " assault weapons and hi cap mag bans"... explain why you chose to equate them.


in other news, Illinois ban on concealed carrying was just defeated in court....sucks to be a hoplophobe nowadays... so much fear, so many defeats.
 
Thrilla said:
well lookie here... Cat think all gun bans are assault weapons and high capacity mag bans.....

explain your ignorance Cat... why do you feel that "gun ban" is equal to " assault weapons and hi cap mag bans"... explain why you chose to equate them.


in other news, Illinois ban on concealed carrying was just defeated in court....sucks to be a hoplophobe nowadays... so much fear, so many defeats.
Click to expand...



Why are you equating a gun ban with and assault weapons and hi cap mag bans?

Thrilla - gun bans are falling by the wayside ( as unconstitutional) all the time now.
Click to expand...


During the entire decade of the ban on assault weapons and hi cap mags, no one, I repeat, no one came up with a valid Constitutional basis for having it overturned by the courts.
 
Catawba said:
Why are you equating a gun ban with and assault weapons and hi cap mag bans?




During the entire decade of the ban on assault weapons and hi cap mags, no one, I repeat, no one came up with a valid Constitutional basis for having it overturned by the courts.
Click to expand...

let's play a little english comprehesnion game...

I will type 2 sentences, and i want you to ponder over the difference.

ready?

1. gun bans are falling by the wayside ( as unconstitutional) all the time now.

2. assault weapons and high capacity mag bans are falling by the wayside ( as unconstitutional) all the time now.


did you catch it?... did you see the difference?

#1 is what I actually said... #2 is what you dishonestly asked me to substantiate.

we done playing your dolt games now or would you like to continue to embarrass yourself?






as for your statement of no one coming up with a valid constitutional basis for having it overturned... you are speculating.
we have both agreed that the ban was not challenged in court... no cases was ever brought to bear.

the most you can say is that is was never challenged.. you cannot speculate as to why it was not ... you cannot , with any accuracy, assume no one came up with a valid constitutional basis for having it overturned.

keep you ego in check, and fire up those brains cells... you are providing inaccurate arguments ( again) and being dishonest ( as usual)
 
Catawba said:
I am happy you feel the ban created no hardship! :cool:
Click to expand...

What is this with you and "no hardship?" I didn't buy one during the last ban, was too young. Now I'd like to and prices are going through the roof after mere talk of a ban.

No hardship? Watch this please:


Know that it will be worse should a ban actually pass. Cost can be quite a hardship.
 
Lachean said:
What is this with you and "no hardship?" I didn't buy one during the last ban, was too young. Now I'd like to and prices are going through the roof after mere talk of a ban.

No hardship? Watch this please:


Know that it will be worse should a ban actually pass. Cost can be quite a hardship.
Click to expand...


I place a higher priority on human life than someone saving a few bucks.
 
Catawba said:
I place a higher priority on human life than someone saving a few bucks.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between a few bucks and the quadrupling of prices. Especially when nothing you've suggested saves anybody, but might also by disarming good people, cost lives.

Keep telling yourself that though :roll:

Also, given that you posted that in 4 minutes on a 12 minute video, its obvious you didn't watch a thing. But ignorance has never stopped you from sharing your bad ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom