• 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
Goobieman said:
There is no such thing as an automatic assault weapon, and so there IS no violence associated with them.
Click to expand...




actually, technically, the only "assault rifles" are automatic.


"assault rifle" came from the German "Sturmgewehr" which translates to, "storm rifle" which in german is synonymous to "assault" and refered to the smaller light and medium caliber fully automatic rifles, that superceded the larger caliber "battle rifles" of the time.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
actually, technically, the only "assault rifles" are automatic.


"assault rifle" came from the German "Sturmgewehr" which translates to, "storm rifle" which in german is synonymous to "assault" and refered to the smaller light and medium caliber fully automatic rifles, that superceded the larger caliber "battle rifles" of the time.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
actually, technically, the only "assault rifles" are automatic.
Click to expand...
Yes. And all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto.

I really do not understand how people that do not have even a basic master of the terms involved in a conversation think that they can have a reasoned position IN that conversation.
 
Groucho Marx said:
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. .
Click to expand...

Handguns are the most commonly used firearm for self-defense... because they are convenient, handy and concealable. I have a concealed carry permit, it is both impractical and unlawful for me to walk around town toting a .308 boltgun, nor is that remotely the best weapon for normal civilian self-defense: in a crowd it would overpenetrate the target and be a greater risk to bystanders.

You're ex-mil, I'm an ex-cop; I'm here to tell you, you either don't know much about civilian defensive shooting, or else you haven't thought this through so well, if you're advocating a handgun ban. I'll be nice and assume you haven't thought through all the ramifications.

You like rifles, so you're fine with pistols being banned...see, this is the "as long as it's not MY ox getting gored, who cares" problem. If hunters don't stand up for the rights of defense-gunners, it won't be long before they're coming for your bolt-rifle and your over-under shotty-gun too.

Stand together or hang seperately...



G.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Yes. And all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto.

I really do not understand how people that do not have even a basic master of the terms involved in a conversation think that they can have a reasoned position IN that conversation.
Click to expand...





who me? :lol:
 
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...

Lethality is mostly determined by the stopping power of a gun. Energy transfer is VERY relative to the "stopping power". If a small bullet travels fast and penetrates a target through and through, the energy TRANSFER is going to be very small, having little to no impact if no vital organs are struck.

A larger slower traveling round is less likely to penetrate both in and out and will end up coming to a complete halt transfering ALL of it's energy. This transfer creates involuntary spasms throughout the body, rendering the target immobile for at the very least the duration of the spasm. Most of the time when a person is shot with a large caliber handgun or rifle, they are knocked onto the ground and dazed.

Here is a "stopping power" guide for handguns.
Guide to Stopping Power

Pistols, Rifles, doesnt matter. When it comes to stopping power, the same rule always applies, slow moving, heavy bullets win.

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

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

How about--->

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
Click to expand...
GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns

Should be a good example of how many legally owned machine guns are used in any sort of crime :2wave:

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

90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.

* 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Click to expand...
Quick Gun Facts

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.
Click to expand...

Banning the guns from law abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals from getting and using them. Never ever works out the way people want it to.


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...

Imported firearms are far more accessible than legally purchased firearms form the U.S.

In south america you can buy pretty much any weapon you want for cents on the dollar. Drug smugglers, gun smugglers, etc. Are very well aware of the market for illegal (______) in the united states and believe you me, they WILL get the goods in.

The regulations imposed on civilians does not help with crime. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
 
Shewter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well then thats a problem with the law... Do you think I am disagreing with you?

I have a quote below me that seems to say that there is no violence associated with automatic assault weapons, so I am not sure how you can say that violence is going up from them.

Goobieman said:
nerv14 said:
You need something from Google to tell you the lethality of a .30-06 compared to a 9mm?


There is no such thing as an automatic assault weapon, and so there IS no violence associated with them.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that there is no such thing as an automatic assault weapons. Do you mean that they are just illegal so no one has them?
Click to expand...
 
nerv14 said:
I don't know how you can say that there is no such thing as an automatic assault weapons. Do you mean that they are just illegal so no one has them?
Click to expand...
By definition, all 'assult weapons' are semi-auto.
That is, "automatic assault weapons" do not exist.
 
Goobieman said:
By definition, all 'assult weapons' are semi-auto.
That is, "automatic assault weapons" do not exist.
Click to expand...

I understand that.

When I am argueing against guns, My problem is only with "fully-automatic
weapons" now.

However, that may change because of the lethality of weapons rating though.
 
nerv14 said:
Well then thats a problem with the law... Do you think I am disagreing with you?

I have a quote below me that seems to say that there is no violence associated with automatic assault weapons, so I am not sure how you can say that violence is going up from them.

Goobieman said:
I don't know how you can say that there is no such thing as an automatic assault weapons. Do you mean that they are just illegal so no one has them?
Click to expand...

"Assault Weapon" is a term made up by politicians to describe semi-automatic weapons with "evil features" (I swear to god california legislature mentions "evil" features)

They are all semi-automatic. So therefor there is no such thing as a fully automatic "assault weapon".


And the crimes being committed with fully automatic weapons are rarely if EVER outside of the criminal scene.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
By definition, all 'assult weapons' are semi-auto.
That is, "automatic assault weapons" do not exist.
Click to expand...




there is no such thing as an assault weapon. it is a made up term the gun grabbers coined to make certan rifles sound evil.
 
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.

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

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

Well, generally the larger the projectile, the greater the lethality; and the greater the muzzle velocity, the greater the lethality. A deer slug from a 12-gauge shotgun is about as lethal as a lawful personal firearm will get.

An ordinary rifle bullet (.30-06, .308 and 7.62mm are all roughly the same size) is more lethal than the slightly larger 9mm handgun bullet, because the rifle's much greater muzzle velocity overcomes the handgun's slightly larger caliber. In order to equal the lethality of a 7.62mm rifle, the handgun would have to be a .45-caliber (11.43mm).

nerv14 said:
There is a difference from murder rates from guns (because most murders are from handguns as everyone says) and murder rates from other weapons.
Click to expand...

If you really, really want to kill somebody, you can do it with a rock. Even a woman's "stiletto" high heel, swung with the amount of force that a typical woman could provide, can penetrate the human skull.

We will never be able to completely eliminate murders in our society. But I believe we can substantially reduce them. Handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill one person. Semi-auto handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill lots of people. I believe we should outlaw handguns.

nerv14 said:
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...

Reducing gun violence will require a comprehensive approach, and it will be a long-term project. I believe that if we outlaw handguns, provide a "buy back" program in all major cities with no questions asked, and subsidize military and law enforcement personnel (who should continue to be allowed to legally own handguns) in their efforts to (A) provide fair market value to civilian collectors getting rid of their handguns, and (B) provide security for their own handgun collections, we will see a substantial decline in gun violence after five years.

There will always be a black market, but I believe that if we divert resources in law enforcement and the prison systems from other "crimes" that aren't so life-threatening, we can strangle the black market in handguns. I believe that for unlawful possession of firearms, a mandatory two-year prison sentence per handgun wouln't be out of line.
 
This rifle is an "assault rifle"

ShootingKitty1_540x405.jpg


Pretty scary huh? :lol:
 
Groucho Marx said:
Well, generally the larger the projectile, the greater the lethality; and the greater the muzzle velocity, the greater the lethality. A deer slug from a 12-gauge shotgun is about as lethal as a lawful personal firearm will get.

An ordinary rifle bullet (.30-06, .308 and 7.62mm are all roughly the same size) is more lethal than the slightly larger 9mm handgun bullet, because the rifle's much greater muzzle velocity overcomes the handgun's slightly larger caliber. In order to equal the lethality of a 7.62mm rifle, the handgun would have to be a .45-caliber (11.43mm).



If you really, really want to kill somebody, you can do it with a rock. Even a woman's "stiletto" high heel, swung with the amount of force that a typical woman could provide, can penetrate the human skull.

We will never be able to completely eliminate murders in our society. But I believe we can substantially reduce them. Handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill one person. Semi-auto handguns make it ridiculously easy to kill lots of people. I believe we should outlaw handguns.



Reducing gun violence will require a comprehensive approach, and it will be a long-term project. I believe that if we outlaw handguns, provide a "buy back" program in all major cities with no questions asked, and subsidize military and law enforcement personnel (who should continue to be allowed to legally own handguns) in their efforts to (A) provide fair market value to civilian collectors getting rid of their handguns, and (B) provide security for their own handgun collections, we will see a substantial decline in gun violence after five years.

There will always be a black market, but I believe that if we divert resources in law enforcement and the prison systems from other "crimes" that aren't so life-threatening, we can strangle the black market in handguns. I believe that for unlawful possession of firearms, a mandatory two-year prison sentence per handgun wouln't be out of line.
Click to expand...

I question if your plan will work... but it sounds pretty comprehensive. Did you get that from some professional report? I would like to check that out.

But, as you say, there is no way to prevent people from murdering, so getting rid of handguns won't have much of an effect. But anyway, the problem is that you can't really get rid of a weapon that is so small and already so widespread.


One problem is that the "buy back" reminds me about what they have tried to do in Afganistan to stop opium production. The problem is that if the buyback money is too low, then no one will use it. and if it is too high then people will grow opium (or smuggle in guns) specifically to sell to the government for a profit.

I don't believe I have heard much suscess with those programs with other illegal items.

I also am skeptical about any gun violence being effected by allowing military and police officers to have handguns. I can't see that making much effect on handgun levels. Since your programs don't TAKE guns off the streets, then this will really just mean that only the bad guys will have ascess to guns.
 
nerv14 said:
I understand that.
When I am argueing against guns, My problem is only with "fully-automatic
weapons" now.
Click to expand...
Two questions:
-Why then do you keep using the incorrect terms?
-When was the last time a legally owned full-auto weapons was used in a crime?

However, that may change because of the lethality of weapons rating though
Click to expand...
A 6.5mm 140gr bullet will easily kill a person at 1000yds.
Are you talking about that kind of "lethallity", or...?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Two questions:
-Why then do you keep using the incorrect terms?
-When was the last time a legally owned full-auto weapons was used in a crime?


A 6.5mm 140gr bullet will easily kill a person at 1000yds.
Are you talking about that kind of "lethallity", or...?
Click to expand...

? How am I using the wrong term? I am just against fully-automatic weapons, not assault weapons. Is that complicated or incorrect?


Was it 1962? I forgot. That seems like the suscess of those laws. fully-automatic guns are responsible for a small percentage of gun related deaths according to a source that someone pulled. Once again, that seems like the suscess of the 1932(around) law against automatic weapons.
 
nerv14 said:
? How am I using the wrong term?
Click to expand...
You are STILL using the term "automatic assault weapon".
There is no such thing.

Was it 1962? I forgot
Click to expand...
You're arguing against the posession of automatic weapons, and you cannot tell us the last time one that was legally owned was used in the crime?
If you cannot paint the picture as to how these guns are used iresponsibly, what support is there for your argument agianst them?

If the laws regarding these weapons are so effective, why change them?
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
I question if your plan will work... but it sounds pretty comprehensive. Did you get that from some professional report? I would like to check that out.
Click to expand...

No, this is just a personal theory.

nerv14 said:
But, as you say, there is no way to prevent people from murdering, so getting rid of handguns won't have much of an effect. But anyway, the problem is that you can't really get rid of a weapon that is so small and already so widespread.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of handguns would have a tremendous effect, because a handgun makes murder really easy. If you have a handgun within reach, and you get the urge to kill someone, you can get the job done in less than a second — even if you have no training and very little physical strength. But with any other weapon ̶̶— a knife, a rock, a baseball bat, a bottle of poison — you would need some combination of a lot of time, substantial physical strength and/or a significant amount of training.

nerv14 said:
One problem is that the "buy back" reminds me about what they have tried to do in Afganistan to stop opium production. The problem is that if the buyback money is too low, then no one will use it. and if it is too high then people will grow opium (or smuggle in guns) specifically to sell to the government for a profit.
Click to expand...

Well, in this case the typical street gang can't plant a garden and "grow" handguns.

nerv14 said:
I don't believe I have heard much suscess with those programs with other illegal items.

I also am skeptical about any gun violence being effected by allowing military and police officers to have handguns. I can't see that making much effect on handgun levels. Since your programs don't TAKE guns off the streets, then this will really just mean that only the bad guys will have ascess to guns.
Click to expand...

Gun buyback programs in our urban areas have recovered a lot of weapons. A recent gun buyback program in Oakland recovered 1,000 handguns because it offered $250 per weapon. Other programs that offered $25, $50 or $100 per weapon haven't been nearly as successful.

Critics take aim at gun buybacks - USATODAY.com

Buyback programs by themselves haven't been successful since they aren't supported by a ban on handguns. For problems as comprehensive as gun violence, we can't just use a carrot or a stick. We have to use both a carrot AND a stick.

This problem has been growing in our cities for more than a century, and it's widespread. We can't expect a Band-Aid to solve the problem, nor can we expect an instant cure. It will take a lot of resources and a lot of time. But I believe we can achieve substantial results.
 
Last edited:
Groucho Marx said:
No, this is just a personal theory.
Getting rid of handguns would have a tremendous effec....
Click to expand...
Interesting.
Can you compare the murder rate in cities with handgun bans v those without?
 
Goobieman said:
You are STILL using the term "automatic assault weapon".
There is no such thing.


You're arguing against the posession of automatic weapons, and you cannot tell us the last time one that was legally owned was used in the crime?
If you cannot paint the picture as to how these guns are used iresponsibly, what support is there for your argument agianst them?

If the laws regarding these weapons are so effective, why change them?
Click to expand...

So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?

What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.

Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally, and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them. The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought. I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?

What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.

Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally, and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them. The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought. I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?
Click to expand...

They are not illegal. They are just well-regulated. As they should be.

And to your final question. Citizens don't have to use S.U.V.'s to commute to work, what's the use in making them period? The list goes on and on.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they are attainable, they are possessed by citizens who have gone through the FFL3 process and paid their tax stamp. There is no reason to suggest that these weapons make life any more dangerous than any other potential weapon today.

The price doesnt matter seeing how if you wanted to get one illegally you can. And you don't pay the same price as a law abiding citzen would.

Is this making any sense? I sure hope so.
 
nerv14 said:
So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?
Click to expand...
No. It is not. It is a machinegun or an assault rifle or a submachine gun, but it is NOT an 'assault weapon'.

What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.
Click to expand...
1: There is no such things as an 'automatic assault weapon'
2: Machineguns are not illegal. I know several people that own them, and a quick search will find several dealers of same.
[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=machine+guns+for+sale&aq=7&oq=machine]machine guns for sale - Google Search[/ame]

Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally, and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them.
Click to expand...
Your suspicions are, obviously, wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom