Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[M14 Shooter]

Show this to be true. Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.

Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.

Still waiting for a reponse.

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

So... you make up definitions to suit your needs.
Sure sign of an unsound argument.
Thanks for playing.

 

[Nosmo King]

Still waiting for a reponse.

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

So... you make up definitions to suit your needs.
Sure sign of an unsound argument.
Thanks for playing.

How do you define 'assault weapons'? I know there are some who are so hung up on semantics and so blind to the destruction brought by guns that they deny the very existence of assault weapons. So, in the spirit of honest debate, I think we should define the problem before solving it.

I offered a reasonable definition. Please tell me if you agree, or if you disagree, why.

 

[Nosmo King]

OK I'll say it again

There is absolutely no fucking difference between my Ruger Mini 14 ( not classified as an "assault" rifle)

And this AR 15 ( a so called assault rifle)

They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly

So what is the logic in banning one and not the other?

Ask the NRA. Twenty years ago Congress passed a watered down assault weapons ban and there was little effect. Why was it watered down? Why the National Rifle Association, that's why!

And so when a comprehensive ban is proposed, the NRA issues talking points and the gun advocates trumpet them like good little obsequious supplicants. No law can stop gun deaths, so why pass a law? Why ban this weapon and not that one? All these situations were set up like bowling pins by the gun lobby and now we have to cut through all this dross just to make a point.

Gun ownership advocates can make exactly the same observation regarding the gun-grabber lobbies.

Only if the so called gun grabbing lobbies wrote the watered down legislation.

 

[Trajan]

I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.

Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.



Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?

I can think of only one.

Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds

Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?

We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.

A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?

how about pistols?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Show this to be true. Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.

Also be sure to include and then allow for the fact that 'assault wepaoms' are the class of firearm least used in crime. and that, in both real and relative terms, their use in crime has -dropped- since the federal ban on them expired.

Still waiting for a reponse.

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are? If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?

In 2011 Rifles of any kind were only used in 2.5% of murders committed with a gun.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

and the total number of murders with rifles of any kind is lower than it was in 2007

In 2011 murders committed with knives were 6 times more common than murders committed with rifles.

So you might want to hold down the hyperbole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.



Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?

I can think of only one.



Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?

We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

so, you answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?

Nope.
He wants to ban the AR15, but not the Mini-14.

how about pistols?

Just those that can take a 10-rd or larger magazine.
You know -- all of them.
Never mind that banning handguns violates the constitution.

 

[Nosmo King]

Still waiting for a reponse.

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are? If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?

In 2011 Rifles of any kind were only used in 2.5% of murders committed with a gun.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

and the total number of murders with rifles of any kind is lower than it was in 2007

In 2011 murders committed with knives were 6 times more common than murders committed with rifles.

So you might want to hold down the hyperbole.

Please read the posts you quote.

 

[Nosmo King]

Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.



Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?

I can think of only one.



Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?

We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.

A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?

how about pistols?

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

 

[Nosmo King]

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

so, you answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?

Nope.
He wants to ban the AR15, but not the Mini-14.

how about pistols?

Just those that can take a 10-rd or larger magazine.
You know -- all of them.
Never mind that banning handguns violates the constitution.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Define assault weapons. I did and you grew mute.

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

 

[Trajan]

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.

A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?

how about pistols?

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

then why mention anything other than the 10 rounds limit then? it apparently doesn't matter for a single shot, ipso, your position is; no mag. capacity over 10 rounds......


why not 12, or 8?

 

[eflatminor]

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.

A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

so, your answer is to stop the manufacture of all semi auto rifles?

how about pistols?

The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'.

Why not the dictionary definition that we've all known for many years, which basically says any firearm capable of burst and/or full auto?

Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

That's every semi auto every made. Not an 'assault weapon'. Pass.

 

[eflatminor]

If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.

A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.

Why do you believe that? Mexico bans guns. How's there murder rate? England and Australia banned them and their murder and violent crime rates increased. You have no evidence that criminals in these countries all of sudden got their guns from other countries. Similarly, you have no evidence because California attempts to ban "assault weapons", that criminals must go out of state to get theirs.

A comprehensive ban, as history demonstrates, only serves to ensure the criminals are armed. You want to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait for someone else to save you, that's your choice. I choose differently.

How do you think American criminals get their weapons? Should it be easy for them to obtain them?

We know exactly how. According to the BATF, 93% of guns used in crime were obtained illegally. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, bost crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources or through family members or friends.

It IS easy to obtain firearms when one doesn't care about the law. That's the point! You're only putting LAW ABIDING citizens at a disadvantage. Why would you seek to do that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

The AR15 fires a .223 round. As the name indicates, this is a .22 sized bullet. The cartridge has a lot more powder, generally about 25 grains than a .22 long rifle, but is still a small round. To contrast, a .30-06 uses 55 grains on a slightly larger slug.

The point is that a .223 is NOT a "high powered" round. It is not in the same class as the 7.62 (54) used in an AK-47 or the WWII round of the .30-06

.223's are accurate and controllable, making them a prime defense weapon. But "high power" they are not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The absurd notion came from you folks.

That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

Well..if it's a right..treat it like one.

It's not an industry.

Then we will just outlaw the manufacture and sale of guns designed specifically to shook kids in the face.

Or better yet, outlaw shooting kids in the face at all. Why has Obama's Khmer Rouge not thought of this and passed a ban on shooting kids in the face?

 

[Circe]

I thought you were pro-gun, but actually, you are trying to get handguns banned, right?

Radical.

No, I'm not. I'm just trying to step into your shoes and ask myself "if I want to reduce gun violence, do I go after the gun implicated in 99% of murders, or the gun implicated in 1% of murders"?

Those aren't my shoes; those are size 14s! In my size 7's I just want assault rifles and high-capacity magazines banned. Because A) it's completely nuts to have guns legal that are made purely to kill lots of people at once when that's illegal.

Reminds me of a prof I knew who bought an Audi, brought it back from Germany. He bought it because it would go 120 miles an hour, he said. A German woman (always a stickler for rules, those Germans) said, "But it's illegal to go that fast here in the USA!"

Everybody was very quiet.

And B) it's the nuts who are actually using the assault rifle as it's meant to be used, to kill lots of people at once. These tend to be small children, but hey, who cares, right? Too few to matter, right? Don't get me started.

 

[Circe]

[
The problem is an agreed upon definition of 'assault weapon'. Here's mine: any firearm, long barrel or hand gun which has a semi automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine holding greater than 10 rounds.

Now, if you don't think this is the type of weapon blasting urban neighborhoods, or used in the spate of mass shootings, which weapons are? If you don't think that it can be a true statement that this type of weapon is too dangerous to be on our streets, which weapons are?

With respect, I don't think that is a problem. I know the gun nuts are always trying to define assault rifles out of existence, but no one else has any problem with definition: assault rifles are the rifles with the banana clips that crazies like Adam Lanza and James Holmes are holding when they mow down children and civilians in a crowd.

The problem is they are in fashion for crowd killings by psychos. If it weren't for that, I don't know that there would be a problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just want assault rifles and high-capacity magazines banned. Because A) it's completely nuts to have guns legal that are made purely to kill lots of people at once when that's illegal.

You cannot cite a single instance where a legally-owned assault rifle was used to commit a crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With respect, I don't think that is a problem. I know the gun nuts are always trying to define assault rifles out of existence, but no one else has any problem with definition: assault rifles are the rifles with the banana clips that crazies like Adam Lanza and James Holmes are holding when they mow down children and civilians in a crowd.

An especially ironic -and- ignorant post. Well done.

 

[MikeK]

Those aren't my shoes; those are size 14s! In my size 7's I just want assault rifles and high-capacity magazines banned. Because A) it's completely nuts to have guns legal that are made purely to kill lots of people at once when that's illegal.

Considering the kind of population diversity at large in contemporary America, and the substantial undertone of hostility which attends the proximity of the various dissimilar groups, I believe a case can be made for wanting to own a so-called "assault" weapon. If an example is needed to illustrate my point I'll refer you to the riot in Los Angeles that followed the first trial of the Rodney King cops.

If you recall, that eruption was so tumultuous it caused the police to abandon the area and the only segment which remained untouched by the violence was the Korean enclave -- which remained untouched because the Koreans were the only citizens who turned out with firearms, including assault weapons, ready to defend themselves and their property.

Ironically, that enclave was the only part of the area that remained peaceful throughout the entire riot. So the bottom line to what I'm saying here is it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Especially in the kind of increasingly divided nation America has become.

In keeping with that line of reasoning; while I'm not expecting such a riot to erupt, neither were the peaceful citizens of Los Angeles. Which brings to mind the issue of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

It would be reasonable for government to forbid me to possess such a weapon if government could assure me I would never be confronted by a hostile adversary who is armed with one. But because the toothpaste is out of the tube where such weaponry is concerned, no such assurance is possible. The United States of America is in fact an armed camp and the only way to disarm the population, especially the outlaw segment, would require ignoring several articles of the Constitution and conducting house-to-house searches and random street-corner and highway frisks.

The present hysteria regarding high capacity magazines is evidence that most anti-gun proponents are not very familiar with guns. They are convinced that without his 30 round magazines Adam Lanza could not have killed all those people in just five minutes. What they choose to ignore is the fact that if he had to reload with 10 round magazines it would have taken him 20 seconds more to accomplish the same massacre.

America is an extremely unique Nation in that it is host to an abundance of firearms and a great many crazy and otherwise dangerous people. And the reason for all the apparent frustration is there really isn't much that can be done about either element.

Unfortunately there is a price to pay to live in the land of the free.

 

[Politico]

I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

I would like you to grow a set. If you and the rest of the Leftytoon minions really cared about people like you say then you'd go after handguns. But you're a bunch of pussies who only care about politicizing for gain.