• 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!

'People punching' guns[W:249]

Should 'people punching' weapons be kept by civilians who want them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 73.9%

  • No

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Not sure/it depends

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23
DifferentDrummr said:
Which I'm sure is only whatever you say is correct. At least in your own mind. :roll:
Click to expand...

At least my mind is able to understand concepts prior to posting.

It is called self education.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
It should be fairly clear from the text you quoted that I never said there was. Whether there should be is a completely different question.
Click to expand...

What question.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.
Click to expand...

Yes there are instances when your life is threatened by more then one person.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I've made an open invitation for someone to come up with a better term. So far, everyone's copped out or been silent...
Click to expand...
"Class-3". The term you're looking for, which describes automatic firearms, is Class-3. It referrs to the kind of Federal Firearms License needed to sell the few kinds of automatic firearms civilians can still own.

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/listing-FFLs

When a gun enthusiast goes looking to buy the kind of gun you're talking about, literally they're Googling class-3 dealer.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
"Class-3". The term you're looking for, which describes automatic firearms, is Class-3. It referrs to the kind of Federal Firearms License needed to sell the few kinds of automatic firearms civilians can still own.

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/listing-FFLs

When a gun enthusiast goes looking to buy the kind of gun you're talking about, literally they're Googling class-3 dealer.
Click to expand...



Yet, he seemed to want to include semi-auto weapons of substantial magazine capacity as well, or at least so it seemed in at least one post.

Perhaps the correct term is "Self-defense firearms". :)
 
Goshin said:
Yet, he seemed to want to include semi-auto weapons of substantial magazine capacity as well, or at least so it seemed in at least one post.

Perhaps the correct term is "Self-defense firearms". :)
Click to expand...

Or perhaps some semi-autos with a high enough magazine capacity should be reclassified as class-3. (I'm not for or against this idea; just saying 'maybe.')
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Could have fooled me.
Click to expand...

I didn't start a thread while having no idea of the subject and terminology, and then get bent when called out for ignorance.

Humility goes a long way.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I've made an open invitation for someone to come up with a better term. So far, everyone's copped out or been silent...
Click to expand...
What guns do you consider "people punching guns"?
What are their common designations?
There's your "better term".
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Or perhaps some semi-autos with a high enough magazine capacity should be reclassified as class-3. (I'm not for or against this idea; just saying 'maybe.')
Click to expand...
Magazine capacity can be fairly easily changed, I think...much easier than changing a weapon from semi-auto to full-auto.

Or maybe I'm wrong about both of those things, I'm no expert.
 
The Mark said:
Magazine capacity can be fairly easily changed, I think...much easier than changing a weapon from semi-auto to full-auto.

Or maybe I'm wrong about both of those things, I'm no expert.
Click to expand...

Semi auto and fill auto are totally different animals.

Mag capacity should have no bearing upon either of those classifications.
 
SMTA said:
Semi auto and fill auto are totally different animals.

Mag capacity should have no bearing upon either of those classifications.
Click to expand...
My point was that semi-auto vs full-auto are a better definition of weapon class than mag capacity, because you can more easily fit a larger mag than change a weapon from semi to full auto.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Or perhaps some semi-autos with a high enough magazine capacity should be reclassified as class-3. (I'm not for or against this idea; just saying 'maybe.')
Click to expand...


Magazine capacity is largely dependent on the magazine, not the firearm. Mostly it is so-called misnamed "assault rifles" (military style semi-auto rifles) with the 30 round mags Certain Persons seem to freak out about.


Next question... why? Rifles of all sorts are used in less than 3% of murders, far less than clubs and bare hands.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
Or perhaps some semi-autos with a high enough magazine capacity should be reclassified as class-3. (I'm not for or against this idea; just saying 'maybe.')
Click to expand...
Class 3 is an antique colector. In order for "semi-autos with a high enough magazine capacity" to be reclassified as Class-3, they would need to be banned, and only antiqu colectors would have them.

You would have to treat every semi-auto which can accept a detachable magazien this way, because while a factory mag may only hold 6-7 rounds, an after market mag could hold considerably more. We call these "happy mags" because they're fun to have and use.

It sounds like you want to ban semi-autos with detachable mags. People know what you're referring to when you say something like "semi-autos with detachable mags" because those are literal mechanical characteristics of a firearm, while "people-punching" is not.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Or perhaps some semi-autos with a high enough magazine capacity should be reclassified as class-3. (I'm not for or against this idea; just saying 'maybe.')
Click to expand...
Canada requires detachable mags to be perminantly modified to hold no more than 3 or 5 rounds, depending on the type of rifle. Fixed magaziens (such as the tube under the barrel of a shotgun) have to be pluged to meet the same limitation, but the plug doesn't have to be perminantly afixed. Removing the plug for anything other than maintenance is a serious offence.

Please understand that you're talking to people who don't see why any kind of firearm should be completely banned. It's not that we've never heard someone offer reasons, its that we've taken an honest look at those reasons and found them to be based on fear, not facts, if not just propiganda.

Banning guns to reduce crime is exactly like banning abortion to reduce unwanted pregnancy. You cannot use a technological solution to solve a sociological problem.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
Wonderful. What is it?
Click to expand...

For which? There is accurate terminology for every type of gun, none for your meaningless tripe.

Give me the definition, Ill give you the term. But until even you know WTF you're talking about, I cannot help you.
 
mpg said:
I'm not familiar with them, so I can't formulate a valid opinion.

Can you please provide more info about these weapons? Thank you.
Click to expand...

He must mean 'fists,' lol
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.
Click to expand...

Civilians should be armed if they want to be...with people slapping knives or people punching guns or people tapping bats or whatever silly name you want to call weapons used in self defense.
 
Goshin said:
To my knowledge, NO weapon is made with the express purpose of killing large numbers of people in a short time at close range.


A LOT of weapons may be CAPABLE of such a feat. In the right hands, as I said, an 1880s Colt Frontier .45 could kill up to six people at close range in a couple seconds.

A pump sporting shotgun, loaded with #00 buck, could put forty-five .30 lead balls in the air at potentially lethal velocity in about 2-3 seconds.


A semi-auto deer rifle in 30-06 could typically kill three or four people at close range in a couple seconds, in moderately skilled (or lucky) hands... and they generally do not have a detachable magazine. 30-06 is a powerful and lethal round, which could penetrate and kill or wound several people with one round. It is a hunting rather than military round... the 5.56 used by the M16/AR15/M4 is weak tea by comparison.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I wonder if 'self defense' by design and purpose is discounted as legitimate?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
That's why states issue (and can revoke) driver's licenses. Are you saying you support gun operator licenses? :)
Click to expand...

Havent seen any licenses issued for Constitutional Rights. Please provide examples.
 
VanceMack said:
Obviously it was not a 'moot point', any more so than their decision to protect other individual rights. They had the foresight and wisdom to see that some people would both readily abandon personal rights and/or insist the government has the right to seize those personal rights and freedoms. Thats why they were included. They are guarded from foolish revisionism.
Click to expand...

DifferentDrummr said:
The "nuh uh" defense adds no strength to your argument at all.
Click to expand...

He gave you a direct answer. Why were you unable to process it and instead, resort to a childish response?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Canada requires detachable mags to be perminantly modified to hold no more than 3 or 5 rounds, depending on the type of rifle. Fixed magaziens (such as the tube under the barrel of a shotgun) have to be pluged to meet the same limitation, but the plug doesn't have to be perminantly afixed. Removing the plug for anything other than maintenance is a serious offence.

Please understand that you're talking to people who don't see why any kind of firearm should be completely banned. It's not that we've never heard someone offer reasons, its that we've taken an honest look at those reasons and found them to be based on fear, not facts, if not just propiganda.

Banning guns to reduce crime is exactly like banning abortion to reduce unwanted pregnancy. You cannot use a technological solution to solve a sociological problem.
Click to expand...

Just for argument's sake, though, it might be useful to examine the question from the opposite side: Is there any GOOD reason for a non-collector who is also a civilian to have a weapon like this. Maybe I'm truly not familiar enough with such weapons to answer that question, but as far as I now know, I can't think of a good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom