• 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!

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  • Total voters
    40
Dav said:
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
Click to expand...

You don't need mega-colorful clothing to be stylish.

You don't need a mega-huge truck or SUV to drive.

You don't need a mega-ugly hybrid to help with the environment.

You don't need a ________________________

See where this is going?

Now, define assault weapon, as it is currently a made up term with no sound backing.

And if you really wanna get into it. Pick ANY "assault" weapon and why it "should" be banned. I will crush you.

Bring this anywhere you want, I will take it up to a private debate if you would like.
 
Dav said:
Someone who doesn't want his whole family blown away before I can even pick up a weapon of my own?
Click to expand...

You are obviously not very educated in the area of firearms.

Assault weapons are not necessarily "fully automatic" and just FYI. You can not purchase a fully automatic weapon without an FFL class III license which includes yearly updates, fees, and heavy monitoring from the ATF. You also can not purchase fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, and you can only own these weapons in FFL 3 states. They are very limited.

Assault Weapons as deemed by the government be it state or federal, are semi-automatic. I am going to do this once more, since people still seem to miss the point of the AWB.

Ruger-mini14-le.jpg


ruger-tactical-mini-14-rifle.jpg


MZplus.jpg



Can you tell me the difference between those three rifles?


Spoiler: They are all the exact same rifle. The Ruger Mini-14 chambered in .223 win/5.56 nato.

This rifle is semi-automatic. And just to let you know, even though it's the same rifle, one of them is considered an assault weapon while two of them are not. Can you guess which one?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?
Click to expand...

He says more efficient at murder as if people use them in murders commonly.

The most efficient murder weapon is a disposable weapon. "Assault weapons" arent very disposable unless you've got alot of "disposable" money as well.

Also, "assault weapons" are not concealable worth a ****.

The top 5 firearms used for violent crimes are the mossberg 500 shotgun, and 4 very small pistols chambered in .380 acp and 9x19mm.

"Assault weapons" are the dangerous ones though right? I swear to god pretty soon we are going to have to register our baseball bats because they're "too dangerous"
 
As long as those that own guns realize that they are part of the Militia and are willing to defend this nation, then I don't care either way.
 
Bodhisattva said:
As long as those that own guns realize that they are part of the Militia and are willing to defend this nation, then I don't care either way.
Click to expand...

Bodhi, whenever someone says they are part of a militia they automatically get labeled a crazy by everyone.

Its best to keep that kind of stuff under wraps.

I agree with what your saying though.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Bodhi, whenever someone says they are part of a militia they automatically get labeled a crazy by everyone.

Its best to keep that kind of stuff under wraps.

I agree with what your saying though.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I say it to get a reaction, not because I want to piss people off, but because it is true. The gun freaks like to label anybody that disagrees as hoplophobic, which is much more crazy than simply sticking to logic.
 
Maxientius said:
i dont debate the second amendment. it was written over 200 years ago. they can cote to amend it to suit their agenda. (they here meaning the Obama administration)
and this thread has nothing to do with nuclear arms. its "assault weapons". if you wanna talk about nukes go to the israeli thread. im there too so we can still fight, thought your obvious lack of understanding would make it an easy victory for me. :cool:
Click to expand...

Actually, the administration doesn't get to vote at all, except as private citizens. The constitutional amendment process doesn't include the executive branch.
 
Bodhisattva said:
:lol:

I say it to get a reaction, not because I want to piss people off, but because it is true. The gun freaks like to label anybody that disagrees as hoplophobic, which is much more crazy than simply sticking to logic.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sticking to logic makes a better case than name calling.

I understand peoples fear with allowing greater access to guns but as we all know the world is a dangerous place with or without guns.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Agreed. Sticking to logic makes a better case than name calling.

I understand peoples fear with allowing greater access to guns but as we all know the world is a dangerous place with or without guns.
Click to expand...

Not to mention "with or without guns" doesnt ever apply to everyone. Only to those who follow the laws for/against guns.
 
No, because it is completely and utter without merit.

The difference between an "assault" rifle and an "normal" rilfe are mainly cosmetic changes.

You can turn a regular rifle into an "assault" rifle with tape and cardboard.
 
Shewter said:
He says more efficient at murder as if people use them in murders commonly.

The most efficient murder weapon is a disposable weapon. "Assault weapons" arent very disposable unless you've got alot of "disposable" money as well.

Also, "assault weapons" are not concealable worth a ****.

The top 5 firearms used for violent crimes are the mossberg 500 shotgun, and 4 very small pistols chambered in .380 acp and 9x19mm.

"Assault weapons" are the dangerous ones though right? I swear to god pretty soon we are going to have to register our baseball bats because they're "too dangerous"
Click to expand...

As everyone knows... the main problem with guns is that they can be used to kill one person, with relates to the most violent killings. You can't prevent people from killing each other, you would need to start outlawing knives and bats as you say.

However, we should get rid of assult weapons (which would include changing the second amendment, I know, I know...). Unlike smaller weapons, assult weapons allow crazy people to kill many other people at once. If a crazy person wants to kill one person, then there is nothing that we can do to stop that. However, we can really stop them from killing many people at once.

Also, any other semi-automatic weapon can be used to overthrow a government or wage a guerrilla war. All guns don't need to be banned to make it more difficult to kill many people at once.

I ask myself, what is so special about nuclear weapons and rocket launchers, in why we shouldn't have those. The answer is that they are able to kill many people at once. Therefore, I put those in a simillar catagory with automatic assult weapons. (yes, if an "assult weapon" is semi-automatic then I am fine with it)
 
nerv14 said:
As everyone knows... the main problem with guns is that they can be used to kill one person, with relates to the most violent killings. You can't prevent people from killing each other, you would need to start outlawing knives and bats as you say.

However, we should get rid of assult weapons (which would include changing the second amendment, I know, I know...). Unlike smaller weapons, assult weapons allow crazy people to kill many other people at once. If a crazy person wants to kill one person, then there is nothing that we can do to stop that. However, we can really stop them from killing many people at once.

Also, any other semi-automatic weapon can be used to overthrow a government or wage a guerrilla war. All guns don't need to be banned to make it more difficult to kill many people at once.

I ask myself, what is so special about nuclear weapons and rocket launchers, in why we shouldn't have those. The answer is that they are able to kill many people at once. Therefore, I put those in a simillar catagory with automatic assult weapons. (yes, if an "assult weapon" is semi-automatic then I am fine with it)
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something. What do you think an assault weapon is?

The assault weapons that were banned in 1994 were all semi automatic.

Fully automatic weapons are not available to the public at all. The only way you can even attain one legally is by being an FFL3 holder (lot of work, look it up if you would like) live in a state that allows FFL3 and NFA weapons, and buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

Now. let me ask you another question.

Can you dig up any substantial evidence of fully automatic weapons (under the current regulations) being used in crimes? No need to bring up any gang killings or organized crime rings, they don't get these weapons legally and they have never and will never be shut down by laws against the weapons.

This is a huge problem with the firearm debates. The VAST majority of the anti-gun crowed, and even the in-betweeners are too ignorant and/or uneducated to cut it.

Sorry if that's offensive, but it's true.
 
nerv14 said:
As everyone knows... the main problem with guns is that they can be used to kill one person, with relates to the most violent killings. You can't prevent people from killing each other, you would need to start outlawing knives and bats as you say.

However, we should get rid of assult weapons (which would include changing the second amendment, I know, I know...). Unlike smaller weapons, assult weapons allow crazy people to kill many other people at once. If a crazy person wants to kill one person, then there is nothing that we can do to stop that. However, we can really stop them from killing many people at once.

Also, any other semi-automatic weapon can be used to overthrow a government or wage a guerrilla war. All guns don't need to be banned to make it more difficult to kill many people at once.

I ask myself, what is so special about nuclear weapons and rocket launchers, in why we shouldn't have those. The answer is that they are able to kill many people at once. Therefore, I put those in a simillar catagory with automatic assult weapons. (yes, if an "assult weapon" is semi-automatic then I am fine with it)
Click to expand...

Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
 
Ethereal said:
Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most people that think an "assault weapon" is a real thing also don't know what a battle rifle is.

World War II we used the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. Neither of which were fully automatic. Both of which were deadly and hold the title of the most important battle rifles in our recent history.
 
Ethereal said:
Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to quantify a "weapon's relative deadliness" but maybe you can enlighten us.

Shewter said:
Let me ask you something. What do you think an assault weapon is?

The assault weapons that were banned in 1994 were all semi automatic.

Fully automatic weapons are not available to the public at all. The only way you can even attain one legally is by being an FFL3 holder (lot of work, look it up if you would like) live in a state that allows FFL3 and NFA weapons, and buy one that was manufactured before 1986.

Now. let me ask you another question.

Can you dig up any substantial evidence of fully automatic weapons (under the current regulations) being used in crimes? No need to bring up any gang killings or organized crime rings, they don't get these weapons legally and they have never and will never be shut down by laws against the weapons.

This is a huge problem with the firearm debates. The VAST majority of the anti-gun crowed, and even the in-betweeners are too ignorant and/or uneducated to cut it.

Sorry if that's offensive, but it's true.
Click to expand...

Great. The laws all work then.

Maybe people aren't killed by automatic weapons very often because they are illegal. Do you know?

I don't have all of the info, but after hearing the wealth of knowedge from you I am more confident with my view. Maybe its just that the educated gun crowd interprets the information wrong. who knows
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
I find it hard to quantify a "weapon's relative deadliness" but maybe you can enlighten us.
Click to expand...
Stopping power of the round fired and the accuracy of the gun determines it's lethality not rate of fire it doesn't matter how many shots per minute you can fire if they can't stop the target or even hit it. If you need a rounds effective stopping power, there are ballistics formulas all over the place.



Great. The laws all work then.
Click to expand...
???? How do you figure, since the U.S. murder rate is up from when full autos were legal and readily accessible.

Maybe people aren't killed by automatic weapons very often because they are illegal. Do you know?
Click to expand...
No, it's not because they are illegal, because as it has been pointed out, they are legal if you meet the proper requirements. People aren't killed by full auto weapons often because the guns are easily traceable, they are expensive so it isn't a weapon you'll just ditch somewhere, the rounds get expensive after a while. A cheap .38 will kill someone just fine, and a 20$ street gun isn't going to be missed when thrown into the river.
Click to expand...
 
Ethereal said:
Whether or not a rifle is automatic or semi-automatic is a pretty meaningless distinction. The rate of fire has very little effect on a weapon's relative deadliness. The Marines didn't issue me a semi-automatic rifle because it was less deadly than a fully automatic.
Click to expand...

Put a terrorist with a fully automatic Uzi and plenty of extra clips in the center of a crowded commuter train station at rush hour, and he'll kill one helluva lot more people than if he had a semi-automatic weapon.

The fact is that full auto is illegal but semi-auto is legal. I have no problem with that.

Honestly, I don't believe the argument is (or should be) full auto vs. semi-auto. The definition of the term "assault weapon" has been expanded by the gun grabbers to include anything that looks wicked, fires semi-auto and has a large magazine capacity.

Very few murders are committed with semi-automatic RIFLES. I believe these should continue to be legal. However, the Virginia Tech shootings (which provided a lot of momentum to the current gun grabbing frenzy) were committed with a semi-automatic HANDGUN.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and argue that it is handguns that should be illegal, not semi-automatic weapons. Handguns are easy to conceal. They are used in the vast majority of firearm related crimes. Even Olympic medal-winning marksmen have trouble hitting a target with the finest handguns in the world if the target is more than 50 yards away, so sporting applications of handguns are limited.

And anyone who has served in the Army or Marines will confirm that if given a choice between a rifle or a handgun, any infantryman with at least two brain cells functioning will choose the rifle. So a handgun ban would be consistent with the Second Amendment purpose of having a well-armed militia. If you want to own a gun, buy a rifle or a shotgun. Buy semi-auto if you choose to do so.

For the record, I'm a combat veteran, a gun owner and an NRA member, my weapon of choice is a bolt-action Remington .308 with a Nikon scope, and I think most AK-47s are useless from a sporting perspective. But if you choose to own one, have fun -- as long as it's just semi-auto.
 
Groucho Marx said:
Put a terrorist with a fully automatic Uzi and plenty of extra clips in the center of a crowded commuter train station at rush hour, and he'll kill one helluva lot more people than if he had a semi-automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

1. "magazines" not "clips"

2. incorrect. as the ROF would mean more bullets in less people.


The fact is that full auto is illegal but semi-auto is legal. I have no problem with that.

Honestly, I don't believe the argument is (or should be) full auto vs. semi-auto. The definition of the term "assault weapon" has been expanded by the gun grabbers to include anything that looks wicked, fires semi-auto and has a large magazine capacity.

Very few murders are committed with semi-automatic RIFLES. I believe these should continue to be legal. However, the Virginia Tech shootings (which provided a lot of momentum to the current gun grabbing frenzy) were committed with a semi-automatic HANDGUN.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and argue that it is handguns that should be illegal, not semi-automatic weapons. Handguns are easy to conceal. They are used in the vast majority of firearm related crimes. Even Olympic medal-winning marksmen have trouble hitting a target with the finest handguns in the world if the target is more than 50 yards away, so sporting applications of handguns are limited.

And anyone who has served in the Army or Marines will confirm that if given a choice between a rifle or a handgun, any infantryman with at least two brain cells functioning will choose the rifle. So a handgun ban would be consistent with the Second Amendment purpose of having a well-armed militia. If you want to own a gun, buy a rifle or a shotgun. Buy semi-auto if you choose to do so.

For the record, I'm a combat veteran, a gun owner and an NRA member, my weapon of choice is a bolt-action Remington .308 with a Nikon scope, and I think most AK-47s are useless from a sporting perspective. But if you choose to own one, have fun -- as long as it's just semi-auto.
Click to expand...



your pistol is a tool one uses to fight thier way back to thier carbine. ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
As long as those that own guns realize that they are part of the Militia and are willing to defend this nation, then I don't care either way.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Not everyone that owns guns is part of the militia.
 
Bodhisattva said:
As long as those that own guns realize that they are part of the Militia and are willing to defend this nation, then I don't care either way.
Click to expand...



let's retouch this.


US code, title 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Click to expand...



What do you think the 2nd states regarding women and those not in the national guard who are over 45.

do they have a right to keep and bear arms to you?


thanks
 
LaMidRighter said:
Stopping power of the round fired and the accuracy of the gun determines it's lethality not rate of fire it doesn't matter how many shots per minute you can fire if they can't stop the target or even hit it. If you need a rounds effective stopping power, there are ballistics formulas all over the place.



???? How do you figure, since the U.S. murder rate is up from when full autos were legal and readily accessible.

No, it's not because they are illegal, because as it has been pointed out, they are legal if you meet the proper requirements. People aren't killed by full auto weapons often because the guns are easily traceable, they are expensive so it isn't a weapon you'll just ditch somewhere, the rounds get expensive after a while. A cheap .38 will kill someone just fine, and a 20$ street gun isn't going to be missed when thrown into the river.
Click to expand...

I looked on google for a list of gun lethality rating, but I couldn't find it. That list may change my opinion on this thread.


Do you have any source for gun violence from automatic assult weapons?

I couldn't find that either.

There is a difference from murder rates from guns (because most murders are from handguns as everyone says) and murder rates from other weapons.

As I said, there is nothing you can do with preventing most killings with handguns. Groucho Marx had a very interesting point about outlawing guns that can be concealed. But that will create an even larger underground market, and not to mention that it would be harder for people to defend themeselves with guns.



Also, even if gun regulations on guns in general normally increases crime, the people who get the guns illegally need to get those guns from somewhere. Therefore, in the long run of having regulations on guns, as the ones that were purchased legally break down, then I would suspect that crimes rates would fall. That may take 50 years or much more though.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
I looked on google for a list of gun lethality rating, but I couldn't find it. That list may change my opinion on this thread.
Click to expand...


uhm you probably should look at the ammo, not the weapon.

The Box O' Truth - Ammo Penetration Testing


Do you have any source for gun violence from automatic assult weapons?

I couldn't find that either.
Click to expand...

because it is next to nill.


There is a difference from murder rates from guns (because most murders are from handguns as everyone says) and murder rates from other weapons.

As I said, there is nothing you can do with preventing most killings with handguns. Groucho Marx had a very interesting point about outlawing guns that can be concealed. But that will create an even larger underground market, and not to mention that it would be harder for people to defend themeselves with guns.



Also, even if gun regulations on guns in general normally increases crime, the people who get the guns illegally need to get those guns from somewhere. Therefore, in the long run of having regulations on guns, as the ones that were purchased legally break down, then I would suspect that crimes rates would fall. That may take 50 years or much more though.
Click to expand...


has it ever happened before in history? NJ banned "assault weapons", crimes with them have remained the same, next to nill.
 
nerv14 said:
I find it hard to quantify a "weapon's relative deadliness" but maybe you can enlighten us.



Great. The laws all work then.

Maybe people aren't killed by automatic weapons very often because they are illegal. Do you know?

I don't have all of the info, but after hearing the wealth of knowedge from you I am more confident with my view. Maybe its just that the educated gun crowd interprets the information wrong. who knows
Click to expand...

The weapons are not illegal in every aspect. Just hard to attain. But like I said, the people that are more likely to kill are able to attain them "illegally" already.

What we are all upset with is that people are still trying to ban semi-automatics based on nothing more than appearance. As I posted before, there are three rifles, they are all the exact SAME rifle, the only difference is they are set in a different stock. Think of it as you in different clothing.

One of them is illegal under the "assault weapon" laws. The other two are absolutely fine.

That's the problem.

And about the fully automatic weapon deal. It really has no impact on performance in capable hands anyways. People have too many misconceptions about firearms. It's actually very sad.
 
nerv14 said:
LaMidRighter said:
I looked on google for a list of gun lethality rating, but I couldn't find it. That list may change my opinion on this thread.
Click to expand...
You need something from Google to tell you the lethality of a .30-06 compared to a 9mm?

Do you have any source for gun violence from automatic assult weapons?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as an automatic assault weapon, and so there IS no violence associated with them.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom