• 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!

How many lives do you think banning assault weapons (with mandatory buyback) will save?

How many lives do you think an assault weapons ban (with mandatory buyback) will save each year?

  • Total voters
    51
Deuce said:
No, you should put me on ignore. That's twice you've responded with nonsense while deleting out the substance of my post. Why are you posting at all?
Click to expand...

Why would I? Seeing you lead your posts with insults then complain no one is taking you seriously can be enlightening.

I posted the post below and you had a conniption.
Rising Sun said:
Tlrmln said:
How many lives do you think banning assault weapons (with mandatory buybacks) will save each year in the US.

Please vote and then comment with your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Since most "gun deaths" are suicides, we could save up to 22,000 lives by turning the US into a police state and banning handguns. Of course, we'd also have to ban ties, shoestrings, sleeping bills, gas ovens and the ocean.
Click to expand...

Suicide Statistics — AFSP
Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US

In 2017, 47,173 Americans died by suicide

In 2017, there were an estimated 1,400,000 suicide attempts

In 2015, suicide and self-injury cost the US $69 Billion
 
Vladimir_AA said:
On a national scale the ban of assault weapons would save thousands of lives over the span of a decade. Considering that 7 deadliest shootings in the U.S. all occurred within the past decade and all shootings were done with assault weapons it can be safe to lay the basis for the assault-weapon ban argument.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. Just because a mass murder was done with a weapon that fits the proposed definition of "assault weapon," doesn't mean the same number of people wouldn't have been killed if assault weapons had not been legally available. In fact, given the proposed definition of "assault weapon" in the legislation currently before Congress (and similar laws in place in various states), there's no rational reason to think it could save any lives.
 
The Mark said:
Depends how the bill banning it defines it, how many people resist selling their weapon to the point of death (which I'd call deaths caused by the ban), and how if in any way quantification of current statistics on such things are compared to statistics after such a ban.

Mainly it depends what we're defining as assault weapons, because so far as I've been able to tell that usually is just "they look like military weapons" or something equally vague.

I need more specifics such as limits on magazine size, projectile size, allowed power of round (depends on mass of projectile and power applied via gunpowder volume), gun barrel length, attachments (already silencers require a special expensive permit I think), loading mechanism type, safety features, etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go with the proposed definition of "assault weapon" in the legislation currently before Congress?
 
Tlrmln said:
Why don't you go with the proposed definition of "assault weapon" in the legislation currently before Congress?
Click to expand...
Cause I don't know what that legislation is called, or any details about it.

Since you apparently know of it, please provide more details.
 
Dans La Lune said:
...



So I guess 'approximately none' are killed in mass shootings.
Click to expand...


Banning "assault" weapons won't stop mass shootings. One of the worst modern mass shootings at Va Tech was carried out with handguns loaded with reduced-capacity magazines.

Nor would you be able to get rid of "assault" weapons anyway....far, far too many already in circulation, unregistered, location unknown.

May as well wish for a big rock candy mountain covered in lottery tickets, or whatever.
 
The Mark said:
Cause I don't know what that legislation is called, or any details about it.

Since you apparently know of it, please provide more details.
Click to expand...

This should be sufficient for purposes of this discussion:

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted: “(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
“(iv) A grenade launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.

***

H.R.1296 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Click to expand...
 
Vladimir_AA said:
On a national scale the ban of assault weapons would save thousands of lives over the span of a decade. Considering that 7 deadliest shootings in the U.S. all occurred within the past decade and all shootings were done with assault weapons it can be safe to lay the basis for the assault-weapon ban argument. This coupled with that fact that assault weapons are much more devastating then handguns or non assault-weapons. As well as, " researchers have been able to demonstrate that the federal assault weapons ban prevented mass shootings and decreased the diversion of assault weapons to criminal use"(1) while the 10 year federal ban was active. It would be childish and naive to think that the assault-weapons ban would cease gun death or mass shootings in America, but just as demented to argue for the need of them in a civilian population.

1)Assault Weapons | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Click to expand...
You have 1 outlier...the Vegas shooting. All other shootings where mass casualties are involved using a semiautomatic rifle are countered by shootings with the same number or more casualties occasioned by the use of handguns. Further...you have to look at the settings of the mass shootings with the greatest numbers of casualties. Confined areas with large quantities of people would result in large numbers of casualties regardless of the weapons used. Considering the rate of fire, rounds fired, and casualties incurred, Charles Whitmans shooting in 1966 using a bolt action rifle and selected targets is far more deadly than the random expenditure of ammunition of over 1100 rounds in Las Vegas. Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people deliberately selecting targets using a 9mm handgun as compared to simply spraying rounds into a crowd in Orlando. Adam Lanza was not able to kill 25 people at Sandy Hook elementary because he had a semi automatic rifle...he was able to kill 25 people because he had 15 minutes unhindered to selectively target children, reloading numerous times. His rate of kill was less impressive than George Hennards use of 2 9mm handguns at Luby's Cafeteria killing 24 people.

These are all tragedies...but they are the facts. Despite the anti-gun leftist claims, banning a semiautomatic rifle would have absolutely zero impact on the number of dead due to mass shootings. As for the day to day suicides and gun violence that accounts to approx 36,000 gun deaths in any given year with the vast majority of those being suicides, targeting 'Assault Rifles' is rather stupid. The entire total of ALL mass shootings including all means from 1982 to current day is 944. Contrast that to the three year total of 1,975 gun related murders in Chicago alone from 2016 to 2018. That three year total doubles the entire mass shooting body count...and it involves zero deaths by 'assault rifle'.

You are chasing rainbows.
 
VanceMack said:
You have 1 outlier...the Vegas shooting. All other shootings where mass casualties are involved using a semiautomatic rifle are countered by shootings with the same number or more casualties occasioned by the use of handguns.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the mass murders done with semiautomatic rifles that are not "assault weapons" (e.g. Norway), and the all ones not done with firearms at all.
 
Another random thought: these people pushing this should just ban death. The ban would have the same effect, that is to ay none.
 
Deuce said:
100% of people who say things like this call themselves libertarian or conservative. So, sorry. You're wrong.
Click to expand...

Proof? With verifiable studies.
 
those who claim more than a 1000 a year are clearly ignorant of reality since there are less than 200 people killed in a normal year by people using such firearms. Indeed, less than 2% of all murders in a given year use the subset of firearms that include what left-wingers call "assault weapons".
 
Hard to say but if it saves just one life, do it. That life may be yours or mine.
 
Goshin said:
Banning "assault" weapons won't stop mass shootings. One of the worst modern mass shootings at Va Tech was carried out with handguns loaded with reduced-capacity magazines.

Nor would you be able to get rid of "assault" weapons anyway....far, far too many already in circulation, unregistered, location unknown.

May as well wish for a big rock candy mountain covered in lottery tickets, or whatever.
Click to expand...

If people like you keep making gun control an all or nothing proposal, don't be surprised when you get 'all' as the popular choice down the road. Especially with the NRA's waning power.
 
Vadinho said:
Hard to say but if it saves just one life, do it. That life may be yours or mine.
Click to expand...

that's a really stupid standard because using that, banning ANYTHING that has been involved in a death would count, as would reducing the national speed on the highways to 30 MPH. And forcibly removing millions of legally owned guns would cost thousands of lives.
 
Dans La Lune said:
If people like you keep making gun control an all or nothing proposal, don't be surprised when you get 'all' as the popular choice down the road. Especially with the NRA's waning power.
Click to expand...

people like you see an incremental approach to complete gun bans. As I noted, the gun banners are going to cause a civil war in this country within the next several decades. and when it is over, I believe the gun banning movement will cease to exist.
 
Tlrmln said:
How many lives do you think banning assault weapons (with mandatory buybacks) will save each year in the US.

Please vote and then comment with your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Here are the stats from the UCR, FBI. This is for all rifles used in homicides. Not just assault rifles as you call them.


Rifles 2012-298 2013-285 2014-258 2015-258 2016-374

So you can see the number is very low. A ban of AR type rifles won't do anything to solve the crime problem with weapons!

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 4
 
Dans La Lune said:
If people like you keep making gun control an all or nothing proposal, don't be surprised when you get 'all' as the popular choice down the road. Especially with the NRA's waning power.
Click to expand...

The NRA is as strong as even! Every election we crush the insane anti-gunners. We have done that for years! :2wave: :peace
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a really stupid standard because using that, banning ANYTHING that has been involved in a death would count, as would reducing the national speed on the highways to 30 MPH. And forcibly removing millions of legally owned guns would cost thousands of lives.
Click to expand...

You're going to need a source for that last claim.
 
Tlrmln said:
How many lives do you think banning assault weapons (with mandatory buybacks) will save each year in the US.

Please vote and then comment with your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obviously more than 1000... because math. Assault rifles are responsible for easily more than 100 deaths per year, amortized over 10 years and you're over 1000.

In context, roughly 3,000,000 Americans die each year. 1000 is a very small number.
 
Deuce said:
100% of people who say things like this call themselves libertarian or conservative. So, sorry. You're wrong.
Click to expand...
Its tough being a Libertarian in a socio-capitalist society. Its virtually impossible to adopt all Libertarian ideas when they are confounded by deeply enmeshed leftist programs and policies. For example...a Libertarian would say...**** it...do whatever drugs you want. I trust the individual to either take care of themselves or...well...die. Their choice. BUT...in our society that second part doesnt exist. We dont let people e irresponsible and then reap the consequences. We let them be irresponsible and then place the burden for their care on others.
 
Mithros said:
I think it's pretty obviously more than 1000... because math. Assault rifles are responsible for easily more than 100 deaths per year, amortized over 10 years and you're over 1000.

In context, roughly 3,000,000 Americans die each year. 1000 is a very small number.
Click to expand...
Thats like saying banning a means of suicide will end suicide. And as we have seen in the UK, Japan, Australia, and other places, gun bans dont stop suicides...at all. People committed to the act will find another means. People committed to mass murder will find other means. An AR is not the end...it is the means.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats like saying banning a means of suicide will end suicide. And as we have seen in the UK, Japan, Australia, and other places, gun bans dont stop suicides...at all. People committed to the act will find another means. People committed to mass murder will find other means. An AR is not the end...it is the means.
Click to expand...
If I had to make a prediction, I'd expect someone who conflates 'stop' and 'reduce' to also not grasp how small 1000 is relative to the number of gun deaths in the US. Thanks for not disappointing!
 
Mithros said:
If I had to make a prediction, I'd expect someone who conflates 'stop' and 'reduce' to also not grasp how small 1000 is relative to the number of gun deaths in the US. Thanks for not disappointing!
Click to expand...
:lamo

There are on the order of 36,000 gun deaths a year...the VAST majority of those are suicides an d the vast majority of ALL gun deaths involve handguns. Reducing rifles of ANY type will not have an impact...not in stopping OR reducing numbers...because again...rifles are merely a means to an and end and only a complete and total ****ing moron would believe that a mandatory buyback would stop OR reduce the number of gun deaths in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom