Somethings been bothering about these gun "ban" talks...

[Wiyld]

Here's the news: We DO want to take all guns away.
It just has to go step by step.

Why does someone in the Netherlands want to take away Americans guns?



This is exactly my point, your simply proving all the 'crazy right wingers' completely right. You've given them good reason then to stop any and all weapons reform which gets us nowhere. America will never allow an all out ban of all firearms, its a silly concept to even imagine it could happen. So trying to do so just stops us from implementing changes that could in fact make a difference.


In essence, you and the guys crying that they need to own 100 machine guns and 100,000 rounds of ammo are exactly the same. Zealots who have no intention of every working toward a common goal.

[Deleted]

Beyond "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted" arguments, I haven't seen many reasoned arguments against restricting assault rifles either. All I hear is NRA lobby and personalities like Alex Jones, which is not to say I'm closed to the other side, but basing arguments on sensationalism isn't going to convince me. Sadly, from Bill Clinton, to Terrorism, to Obama, the Neo-Conservatives have employed sensationalism and conspiracy theory (and blatant lies) to prop up their cause everytime.

[Wiyld]

Beyond "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted" arguments, I haven't seen many reasoned arguments against restricting assault rifles either. All I hear is NRA lobby and personalities like Alex Jones, which is not to say I'm closed to the other side, but basing arguments on sensationalism isn't going to convince me. Sadly, from Bill Clinton, to Terrorism, to Obama, the Neo-Conservatives have employed sensationalism and conspiracy theory (and blatant lies) to prop up their cause everytime.

To be fair though, Clinton himself has been called out for outright lying about gun deaths to sensationalize them and motivate more gun control laws.

We know what our problems are here, we don't need anyone exaggerating them.


source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0eb9_blog.html


I want to especially make a note of this part:

Moreover, the reasons behind a spike or decline in gun violence are often much more complex than a single factor, such as the expiration of a law. In general, overall crime rates, including homicides, have declined in recent years because of a variety of factors.




but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read that entire page before coming to any concrete conclusions, its good information.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 04:25 PM ----------

Can we here, all agree, that from this point on anyone who wants to talk about fully automatic machine gun type weapons will refer to them as 'automatic weapons' PLEASE.

The term 'assault weapons' has become so watered down and convoluted that its just being used wrong all over the place.

If you have an issue with machine guns and automatic weapons, then call them that.

[Dillon]

Why are you so torn? You said it yourself that there isn't a need for assault weapons. Semi-automatic handguns can be used practically for self defense, why does anyone need anything more. The fact that this is such a divisive argument is disconcerting.

I still laugh at the conspiracy nuts that think they are going to down our "tyrannical government" when they come to "send us to the FEMA camps." GL

I keep seeing this "need" argument. So I'll keep restating what I said a while ago, that I tell you to be very, very cautious of the word "need" when referring to government or rights, and be suspicious when you read it, because "need" isn't a friend to rights or reason.

The concept of "need" is not only completely irrelevant when rights are the subject, they are an enemy of rights and reason.

Also, on the subject of tyranny in government, I wouldn't worry about it because our military is volunteer.

[Deleted]

You do know these shootings are done by the goverment to make the ban on weapons go though so they will not haev to worry abour riots...

But alot of people don't use their brains casue they are already controlled.

[Isotope]

I see a lot of claims about banning this and banning that yet when I actually ask the people about it they didn't even know what type of weapon they were trying to ban.

I will guess and I know a lot people are going to give me shit for it, but 75% of the people who want to "ban <insert weapon type here>" have almost no idea what they are talking about and are just jumping on a band wagon.

A lot of these people think that you can just go to Gary's Guns and buy a fully automatic weapon and walk out there door. Not only is that not true but in order to get a fully automatic weapon (yes you can get them) you have to go through the ATF and it isn't quick nor is it cheap. Also I've never heard of (not looking up on google and trying to find one) of an automatic weapon used in a mass killing.

As for the old assault weapon ban. People don't realize that most of the banned things in there were cosmetic upgrades. Guns that would fall under the ban because of their look were no more or less deadly then guns that fired the same size round, speed and distance but just looked ugly were okay.

Lets say we have two cars. Both of these cars are exactly the same except for the outside. On car one we have dents and different colored hood, now car two is kept in perfect condition has a nice paint job and even a cute little body kit. Basically the law says that car one is okay while car two is against the law.

The last point I want to make because people who wish to "take ma guns." It has been proven in a study by the DoJ:

should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[

The people that actually have dealings with gun crimes have come out and said that a ban again would be worthless.

[Raidenx]

The shocking truth about assault rifles

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[Destruktion]

I didn't think anyone was 'destroyed' in that discussion; to the contrary, I thought it was fairly balanced political discourse.
To address your concerns: the desire to ban assault weapons is a reaction to the Sandy hook shooting, which was committed with an assault weapon. If the shooting was committed with handguns, we might be having a different discussion. The thing is, Piers has a point: all of the recent mass shootings in the USA have been committed with assault weapons. That is why assault weapons are ultimately pulling the focus in this latest incarnation of the gun debate.

I personally don't see a reason for assault weapons to be in the hands of civilians in the first place, other than a traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment. If someone here who perhaps owns an assault weapon could elucidate other more compelling reasons, I'd really like to hear them.

[Deleted]

To be fair though, Clinton himself has been called out for outright lying about gun deaths to sensationalize them and motivate more gun control laws.

We know what our problems are here, we don't need anyone exaggerating them.


source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0eb9_blog.html


I want to especially make a note of this part:


If you have an issue with machine guns and automatic weapons, then call them that.

Politicians have a habit of making poorly researched, exaggerated speeches. The UK's home secretary made an inaccurate reference to a deportee who was allegedly allowed to stay in the country because "he had a pet cat". Not only was this false, but it was copy-pasted from another smaller party leaders speech verbatim. Politicians saying stupid things is not the issue here.

What does interest me is the fact that the article referenced the ban put in action between 1994-2004. I didn't even know that. That makes this seem even more an overhyped issue to me.

[Svifnymr]

I personally don't see a reason for assault weapons to be in the hands of civilians in the first place, other than a traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment. If someone here who perhaps owns an assault weapon could elucidate other more compelling reasons, I'd really like to hear them.

Hunting depending on caliber ("assault weapons" come in a wide range of calibers), home defense depending on caliber, sporting events, ranch rifle, collecting, recreational gunsmithing.

[Wiyld]

The shocking truth about assault rifles

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

That link is amazing, I hope everyone here who hope to claim they are at all moderate on this issue will read though that and understand the facts.


If you want to reduce gun deaths, there are ways to do it. The current proposed laws do nothing to help anyone but our government.

[Svifnymr]

What does interest me is the fact that the article referenced the ban put in action between 1994-2004. I didn't even know that. That makes this seem even more an overhyped issue to me.

The federal ban was 94-04. The Connecticut ban continues to this day. The Bushmaster used was not an assault weapon.

[Wiyld]

Politicians have a habit of making poorly researched, exaggerated speeches. The UK's home secretary made an inaccurate reference to a deportee who was allegedly allowed to stay in the country because "he had a pet cat". Not only was this false, but it was copy-pasted from another smaller party leaders speech verbatim. Politicians saying stupid things is not the issue here.

What does interest me is the fact that the article referenced the ban put in action between 1994-2004. I didn't even know that. That makes this seem even more an overhyped issue to me.

Raiden posted an excellent short slideshow about that very subject, give it a look.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I'm glad to hear someone willing to investigate the issue a bit deeper.


From everyone who actually wants to see intelligent discussion, Thank You.

[Doylez]

Obviously banning assault rifles is just the first step, after that something needs to be done about "normal" guns as well.

[Bryntrollian]

Can someone please enlighten me on which " Mass Murders " were done using assault rifles ?

[goobernoob]

Can someone please enlighten me on which " Mass Murders " were done using assault rifles ?

That depends on what definition of assault rifles you are using.

[Payday]

How many people here can define what an assault weapon is?

How many of you even care?

How many of you are just hoping they ban all the scarey looking guns that don't have wood stocks.

How many of you realize that pistols very often chamber the same size or BIGGER bullets then your assault rifles?

How many of you realize that almost every time you read or hear a media reference to 'assault rifles' it is actually completely wrong.

How many of these points are actually valid to the conversation. If the answer to any or all of these questions was 0, it still wouldn't take away from the fact that people don't need assault weapons, especially when you add in the pro-gun cop-outs like mental health issues, big pharma overreach, etc. All of which are part of the problem.

Also, on the subject of tyranny in government, I wouldn't worry about it because our military is volunteer.

To me, this is the only valid argument for assault weapons in the 2nd amendment..and it is obviously absurd. If you take this aspect out of it, assault weps go with it imo.

[Svifnymr]

Can someone please enlighten me on which " Mass Murders " were done using assault rifles ?

I don't want to engage in semantic debates, but it sort of depends on your definition of assault rifle. The Assault Weapons Ban defines the rifle used in the batman theater shooting as an assault weapon, the sandyhook bushmaster was an ar15 style gun that does not meet that definition. There was also an ar15 style gun used in a NY shooting where a guy started a fire and killed two firemen. 2 isn't "mass" by any means, and NY also has an AWB in place, but the gun wasn't bought legally there so who knows what it was.

Columbine had a tec-9 that was considered an Assault Weapon (though it's a pistol, not a rifle, so not an "assault rifle") and also 2 handguns and a non-assault weapon rifle. Virginia Tech was 2 handguns.

[oblivionx]

Can someone please enlighten me on which " Mass Murders " were done using assault rifles ?

They don't care, the only thing they want out of this tragedy is gun control. That's the left's ultimate agenda, and by hook or by crook they will go for it.

Their big government controlling everything and telling people how to live requires your guns to work. As it is now they are scared (well they are always scared) of armed citizens getting in the way of their progress.

[Wiyld]

How many of these points are actually valid to the conversation. If the answer to any or all of these questions was 0, it still wouldn't take away from the fact that people don't need assault weapons, especially when you add in the pro-gun cop-outs like mental health issues, big pharma overreach, etc. All of which are part of the problem.

How can you say you do not need it, if you cannot even clearly define it?