Assault Weapon Discussion Split from Middle class thread

[Gil Hamilton]

Anyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban is a tyrant. That includes Bush, of course, but at least he's from the party which is going to kill it in Congress--and I do have some concept of party-line loyalty which makes me think he's a better choice than a creature associated with the democrats.

May I be a Devil's Advocate for a second?

There is an obvious question that needs to be asked. What do you need an assualt weapon for? You wouldn't want to hunt with one, since you have hunting rifles for that. Handguns will kill someone effectively in any practical situation where you'd have to defend yourself or home, plus it's not like you can carry an assault weapon around in your purse. If a perp doesn't go down in the first shot, it's not like you can't squeeze the trigger a few more times to make sure he falls over. Plus, it's not like you need to own one for work, since jobs that require use of an assault weapon tend to provide them. And if I recall correctly, you live in New York, which is about as far away from any warzones as you can get, except for possibly some island in the middle of the Pacific, and it's powerfully unlikely that it ever will be for the foreseeable future.

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, I don't see any practical reason why you need one in the first place.

[Knife]

Anyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban is a tyrant. That includes Bush, of course, but at least he's from the party which is going to kill it in Congress--and I do have some concept of party-line loyalty which makes me think he's a better choice than a creature associated with the democrats.

May I be a Devil's Advocate for a second?

There is an obvious question that needs to be asked. What do you need an assualt weapon for? You wouldn't want to hunt with one, since you have hunting rifles for that. Handguns will kill someone effectively in any practical situation where you'd have to defend yourself or home, plus it's not like you can carry an assault weapon around in your purse. If a perp doesn't go down in the first shot, it's not like you can't squeeze the trigger a few more times to make sure he falls over. Plus, it's not like you need to own one for work, since jobs that require use of an assault weapon tend to provide them. And if I recall correctly, you live in New York, which is about as far away from any warzones as you can get, except for possibly some island in the middle of the Pacific, and it's powerfully unlikely that it ever will be for the foreseeable future.

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, I don't see any practical reason why you need one in the first place.

The simple fact that cops need more firepower to protect themselves from criminals using already illegal assualt rifles, is enough reason for a private citizen who does not break the law but understands that the cops can't be everywhere at any time to protect them.

[Coyote]

Gil, we run the risk of turning this into a Gun Control thread but if I may I'd like to offer my opinion on the "need" to have "assault" rifles.

First off a definition: a true "assault rifle" is a selective-fire miltary weapon capable of firing fully-automatic or semi-automatic (one shot per trigger squeeze). When look-alike military style rifles appeared on the market they were semi-automatic only and remain that way to this day. True full-auto weapons have been banned from the general public since 1934.

When these look-alikes were marketed, they were marketed under the name "assault rifles" to appeal to adventure types and military buffs. It was a mistake to market the weapons under that name, for it is incredibly aggressive sounding and the gun-ban crowd really jumped on it and used the title to frighten people who are ignorant of guns in general.


That said... the issue of "need"


Let's look at things realistically: nobody "needs" a color TV. In fact you can get all the information you need from the radio. You do not "need" a computer. In fact, TV and computers spread violent images and violent behavior, so we'd probably be better off without them.

You also do not "need" a car, which pollutes, and promotes aggressive driving in stressful situations. Public transportation is safer and more responsible, and the drunk driving dangers reduce to insignificance.

You also do not "need" any clothing beyond a sort of basic grey jumpsuit of unisex design. Fashionable clothing promotes competitive attitudes and gangs will kill for a set a Nikes. When it comes right down to it, people surrond themselves with a lot of truly useles things that are not "needed" or justifiable in any way.

But the idea of America, indeed all Western democracy and freedom for the individual, is based upon the idea that a person gets the respect due to him or her as a responsible and rational adult, able to make the right descisions. You can pretty much do or on anything within reason so long as you do not trample on the rights of others, all without having to satisfy some bureacratic apparatchik's notion of what you "need".

Guns are sold with warnings. Every gun sold in the US comes with a warning that it is not a toy and it is not to be pointed at anyone or anything in a careless or reckless manner. They have been sold this way for decades before mandatory safety labeling was the norm. Unlike cigarettes, which were sold under false pretenses of harmlessness, guns were sold with up front warnings about the dangers and responsibilities of gun ownership. There was never any attempt by gun makers to mislead anyone about the care that needed to be exercized when handling a gun.

That said, gun pwners, and even "assault rifle" owners, have been statistically more safe than car owners. It is said that "guns are designed only to kill" but there are historical examples that this is not the case, and yet even if you wanted to accept that point of view, gun owners have a greater safety record than car owners: cars, which were not "designed to kill", have killed far more.

Any person is capable of crime. Any person is capable of having one too many and driving home and killing others. Or robbing banks, murdering, molesting children, and so on-- yet we cannot go around blaming and locking up people just because others fear what "might" happen if we don't. So it makes no sense to take an entire class of people-- 80 million estimated by some counts-- who have done no wrong and lump them in with the few hundred each year that prove to be unwilling to conform to society's norms.

In America, we do not allow collective punishment for individual actions, and so all gun owners should not be punished for the criminal activities of others. Just as all car owners should not be held criminally liable for the actions of drunk drivers.

It is not about "need" it is about freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. Because when we allow one right to be banned because it is not something we "need", think of all the other things you have in your house that you enjoy but don't truly "need" that someone else could say is a cause for trouble and should be confiscated. Think of the trouble of computers and the internet-- child pornography and the ability to plan terrorism or set up terrorist websites-- and ask yourself if you are willing to start ridding yourself of everything in your life that is not "needed" just to satisfy someone else's perceptions of safety, like John Ashcroft's.

Is it really worth that?

[Gil Hamilton]

The simple fact that cops need more firepower to protect themselves from criminals using already illegal assualt rifles, is enough reason for a private citizen who does not break the law but understands that the cops can't be everywhere at any time to protect them.

Such criminals are the ones that work for criminal organizations and thus have enough resources to aquire them. Those criminals have generally better things than to try and rob someones house. It's not like you can carry assault weapons around, just in case you accidently get in the middle of some drug cartel knocking over a bank and the average street thug that might try to mug someone doesn't require that much firepower. The fact is that no thug who has the resources that require that much firepower is going to bother breaking into homes and thus assault weapons making any difference. A handgun works just as well on anyone trying to break into a house.

<snipped for space>

*clap clap* Nice speech, but you didn't answer the question anywhere there. That was this; "What practical need is there in a persons life that requires them to have an assault weapon?" So instead of dodging the issue with irrelevant analogies, how about you answer it and list the day-to-day applications that a normal person has for what have been dubbed "assault weapons".

[Beowulf]

The simple fact that cops need more firepower to protect themselves from criminals using already illegal assualt rifles, is enough reason for a private citizen who does not break the law but understands that the cops can't be everywhere at any time to protect them.

Such criminals are the ones that work for criminal organizations and thus have enough resources to aquire them. Those criminals have generally better things than to try and rob someones house. It's not like you can carry assault weapons around, just in case you accidently get in the middle of some drug cartel knocking over a bank and the average street thug that might try to mug someone doesn't require that much firepower. The fact is that no thug who has the resources that require that much firepower is going to bother breaking into homes and thus assault weapons making any difference. A handgun works just as well on anyone trying to break into a house.

I don't suppose the Hollywood bank robber is familiar to you...

[Knife]

Such criminals are the ones that work for criminal organizations and thus have enough resources to aquire them. Those criminals have generally better things than to try and rob someones house. It's not like you can carry assault weapons around, just in case you accidently get in the middle of some drug cartel knocking over a bank and the average street thug that might try to mug someone doesn't require that much firepower. The fact is that no thug who has the resources that require that much firepower is going to bother breaking into homes and thus assault weapons making any difference. A handgun works just as well on anyone trying to break into a house.

My shot gun is rather impractable to carry around outside in hopes of preventing my death from sudden drug war action too. Yet I still own one for home defense. To use a blanket denial of one particular weapon because you seem to think it would have limited use does not mean it can have one.

An assualt rifle is really just a semi auto rifle usualy with plastic in the design instead of wood. It is portable and has a decent round capacity. Why shouldn't I use it for home defense.

Should we get rid of semi auto handguns since a revolver would work just as well and you don't need all those pesky rounds to shoot one or two robbers?

With some exceptions, it should not matter what type of weapon I choose to defend my house and family. Especialy with some thing as cosmeticaly driven as the so called 'assualt rifle'. A machinegun or explosives, you have a point. But just because they design a semi auto rifle that looks vauguely military and uses healthy portions of plastic instead of wood, doesn't mean they should ban its use from law abiding citizens.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't suppose the Hollywood bank robber is familiar to you...

No, but I assume it was someone who robbed banks in Hollywood and used an assault weapon, and was a significantly uncommon occurance to warrant national attention and anti-gun control folks to claim that they actually have a practical purpose for owning heavy firepower. Am I right?

[Knife]

I don't suppose the Hollywood bank robber is familiar to you...

No, but I assume it was someone who robbed banks in Hollywood and used an assault weapon, and was a significantly uncommon occurance to warrant national attention and anti-gun control folks to claim that they actually have a practical purpose for owning heavy firepower. Am I right?

Actually it was big enough that alot of police forces, LA in particular since that is where it incident took place, started equiping their cars with high power rifles.

Basicly, two fuckheads in head to toe kevlar robbed a bank in day light armed with AK's. The cops 9mm did jack shit and they raided a gunshop to get some heavy weapons to bring the fuckers down.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually it was big enough that alot of police forces, LA in particular since that is where it incident took place, started equiping their cars with high power rifles.

Basicly, two fuckheads in head to toe kevlar robbed a bank in day light armed with AK's. The cops 9mm did jack shit and they raided a gunshop to get some heavy weapons to bring the fuckers down.

Ah right, I suppose someone who can afford to get full body kevlar armor and AKs is going to bother breaking into your house at night to get your TV and thus warrant you needing heavy firepower?

[Knife]

Actually it was big enough that alot of police forces, LA in particular since that is where it incident took place, started equiping their cars with high power rifles.

Basicly, two fuckheads in head to toe kevlar robbed a bank in day light armed with AK's. The cops 9mm did jack shit and they raided a gunshop to get some heavy weapons to bring the fuckers down.

Ah right, I suppose someone who can afford to get full body kevlar armor and AKs is going to bother breaking into your house at night to get your TV and thus warrant you needing heavy firepower?

Another unlikely senario. However you seem to be going off of a tit for tat system. Why should I have to re-equip myself to keep pace with the bad guys. Why shouldn't I be able to buy a semi-auto rifle?

I buy guns that cover quite a few personal specifications. What is it about a semi auto rifle that is so overkill that it should be banned? Don't give the unlikely senarios, people use guns to defend themselves thousands of times per year in the US. Why shouldn't an 'assualt rifle' be used in that reguard?

Again, if you avocated banning fully auto weapons (which are illegal) I would agree with you. But the so called assualt rifle is just a jazzed up rifle for crying out loud.

[Gil Hamilton]

Another unlikely senario. However you seem to be going off of a tit for tat system. Why should I have to re-equip myself to keep pace with the bad guys. Why shouldn't I be able to buy a semi-auto rifle?

I buy guns that cover quite a few personal specifications. What is it about a semi auto rifle that is so overkill that it should be banned? Don't give the unlikely senarios, people use guns to defend themselves thousands of times per year in the US. Why shouldn't an 'assualt rifle' be used in that reguard?

Again, if you avocated banning fully auto weapons (which are illegal) I would agree with you. But the so called assualt rifle is just a jazzed up rifle for crying out loud.

But you were the one you said you needed such weapons in case of such a scenario, not me.

[Gil Hamilton]

I notice alot of responses, but I've yet to actually see my question that I originally posted answered.

Now let me re-iterate. What practical purpose do what have been dubbed "assault weapons" have that cannot be matched by weapons that are already legal and thus they need an "assault weapon".

So far, people have tried the old answer a question with a question trick to avoid giving a direct answer. This simply indicates that they cannot adequately defend their position well enough to actually give a direct answer.

[Knife]

But you were the one you said you needed such weapons in case of such a scenario, not me.

The simple fact that cops need more firepower to protect themselves from criminals using already illegal assualt rifles, is enough reason for a private citizen who does not break the law but understands that the cops can't be everywhere at any time to protect them.

The cops had 9mm and the baddies had rifles. Now the cops have rifles and the baddies too.

Why shouldn't I have the option of getting either the 9mm or 5.56. I can already get the .223 but in single shot (or pre banned). I guess it does come down to firepower or volume there of, so your right, I did bring it up. Sorry, got side tracked.

Still, the problem lays in that why shouldn't I have the choice of what type of rifle I buy and use to defend myself. My revolver v semi auto pistol example still stands. Should semi auto pistols be banned due to agressive style and larger round capacity? Thats basicly your argument against the 'assualt rifle'.

[Knife]

Now let me re-iterate. What practical purpose do what have been dubbed "assault weapons" have that cannot be matched by weapons that are already legal and thus they need an "assault weapon".

None, which is why they should not be banned. If they can do the SAME job as a conventional rifle then they don't create any greater risk to the user or the surrounding area and thus should not be banned on trivial things like looks.

[Gil Hamilton]

[The cops had 9mm and the baddies had rifles. Now the cops have rifles and the baddies too.

The problem is that by and large, the baddies don't have them. You are subscribing to the Crazy Militia Fantasy that all criminals are packing heavy firepower and these criminals have nothing better to do than break into their house to kill them for no reason.

Why shouldn't I have the option of getting either the 9mm or 5.56. I can already get the .223 but in single shot (or pre banned). I guess it does come down to firepower or volume there of, so your right, I did bring it up. Sorry, got side tracked.

Still, the problem lays in that why shouldn't I have the choice of what type of rifle I buy and use to defend myself. My revolver v semi auto pistol example still stands. Should semi auto pistols be banned due to agressive style and larger round capacity? Thats basicly your argument against the 'assualt rifle'.

Refer to my last post.

[Gil Hamilton]

None, which is why they should not be banned. If they can do the SAME job as a conventional rifle then they don't create any greater risk to the user or the surrounding area and thus should not be banned on trivial things like looks.

OK, now you are just being confusing. You admit that "assault weapons" have absolutely no practical application, yet you argue that this is why they shouldn't be banned? What kind of logic is that?

Also, if you can get a rifle that does the same thing legally, which also has no practical application by your own admission, by the way, then why don't you go out and buy one of those? It can't possibly be a simple matter of looks, since a person who actually intends to use a weapon doesn't care about looks, just performance, yet you have such a hard-on for getting an "assault weapon" rather than go out and buy a rifle with what you claim is identical performance. This I don't understand. You must not want such a weapon to defend your home, but for some other reason, since if you were serious about defending your home, you wouldn't care what you had, as long as it gets the job done.

[Knife]

Arg.

You want to ban them for some reason (not yet stated) but supposedly they are massively more dangerous than normal weapons.

I say that they fullfill the same needs as other weapons that are legal and do not pose any 'great threat' to the populace or user that is not already there with legal weapons.

Yes, a high power rifle (which an assualt rifle would be part of) is more effective and powerful than a submachinegun, which is more powerful than a handgun and so on. Yet, an illegal AR15 is no more dangerous than a legal 308 hunting rifle. Why should it be banned?

Hopefully I expressed myself better that time. I don't think I can say it any clearer. Sorry for any confusion.

[Knife]

This has gotten pretty lengthy. Any mod want to split this?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

OK, now you are just being confusing. You admit that "assault weapons" have absolutely no practical application, yet you argue that this is why they shouldn't be banned? What kind of logic is that?

I disagree that assault weapons--it's a very broad term--have no practical applications. But think about your statement for a moment. Why ban something just to ban something? Because people might get hurt by it? That's the same reason all these ridiculous laws are passed about smoking and banning alcohol for people up to 21 instead of 18 and for things like trying to ban Harry Potters for children, or eliminating the deep ends of swimming pools in city parks. Can't people take any fucking personal responsibility anymore? It isn't just guns, it's the entire general trend towards letting government legislate responsibility, and since firearms are in the constitution, they're the best place to focus on reversing that trend!

[Worlds Spanner]

Splitting would be good.

Having just been involved in some lobbying on the ban, I'd like to point out a few things about assault rifles.

First, these are not just jazzed up civilian rifles. They are "civilianized" or stripped down military weapons. The basic firing mechanism is the same, it just has the fully automatic mode disabled. This means that it is possible to UNcivilianize them, and such kits can be legally sold.

Second, assault rifles do in fact have a dedicated purpose: mass murder. There are three basic companants that all assault rifles share. First, the high speed firing mechansim (it may only be semi-authomatic but it can fire as fast as you can depress the trigger which is pretty damn fast). Second, a high capacity magazine. These are illegal under the current ban, but old magazines have been grandfathered in and are legally being sold on new weapons. Finally, a pistol grip. This allows you to hold the weapon at your waist and spray fire, as you see in the movies. If you use it hunting, your deer or whatever will end up in pieces. If you use it for home defense, you'll really fuck up your bedroom. But if you use it for crime, you can mow down many people very fast, including cops with body armour and their little pistols.

Third, on the subject of tyranny. It might interest you to know that the NRA SUPPORTS the extension of the current ban. This is because the current ban that Bush supports is TOTALLY ineffective. The ban is too vaugue on what an assault rifle is and it allows too many componants. When the ban went into effect, some rifles needed as little as the removal of their BAYONET mounts to remain legal. That's not really a ban. Support for it by Bush and the NRA make it look like they're concerned about assault weapon crime when they know perfetly well that the law has no effect.

There are other issues like the negligence of gun makers, but they're somewhat tangental.

E.G. When the Bushmaster used by the DC snipers was stolen from the factory by an employee, Bushmaaster just shrugged and wrote it off, never investigated or anything. And that rifle sells for over a thousand dollars. Fucking criminal.

Anyway, assault weapons = bad. The current ban isn't really a ban. We should either pass the new ban (HR 2038) or let it drop, stop pretending, and let people have their bayonets back.

[Edi]

Finally, a pistol grip. This allows you to hold the weapon at your waist and spray fire, as you see in the movies. If you use it hunting, your deer or whatever will end up in pieces. If you use it for home defense, you'll really fuck up your bedroom. But if you use it for crime, you can mow down many people very fast, including cops with body armour and their little pistols.

Um, have you ever fired a full-auto assault rifle? Because pistol grip or not, if you hold it at the hip and spray fire, several things will happen:
1) You will probably hit everything but the target
2) The recoil will kick the gun out of control. You can fire an assault rifle on full auto accurately, but only in short bursts and only if you know how, and it's definitely not from the hip (at least this applies to the AK-47, 5.56 caliber is probably easier to control).
3) You'll be wasting ammo
4) Somebody not in your fire arc and with a weapon of their own will take you down with an aimed shot

Further, body armor will stop an assault rifle round. It'll hurt like hell when it hits, but the target will live if the hit is on an armored section.

Not that I disagree about there needing to be tight (but not unnecessarily complicated or restrictive) regulation of guns and quite possibly a ban on weapons that could be converted to near military equivalents, but I just couldn't let that pistol grip comment and the following claims pass uncommented.

And yes, a split would be nice.

Edi

[Iceberg]

Finally, a pistol grip. This allows you to hold the weapon at your waist and spray fire, as you see in the movies. If you use it hunting, your deer or whatever will end up in pieces. If you use it for home defense, you'll really fuck up your bedroom. But if you use it for crime, you can mow down many people very fast, including cops with body armour and their little pistols.

Um, have you ever fired a full-auto assault rifle? Because pistol grip or not, if you hold it at the hip and spray fire, several things will happen:
1) You will probably hit everything but the target
2) The recoil will kick the gun out of control. You can fire an assault rifle on full auto accurately, but only in short bursts and only if you know how, and it's definitely not from the hip (at least this applies to the AK-47, 5.56 caliber is probably easier to control).

5.56 calibur isn't that much less inaccurate. The reason why the Army added a three-round burst setting to the M16 is because it doesn't throw off aim as much.

3) You'll be wasting ammo

Indeed. At full auto, 30 rounds lasts about two seconds.

[BoredShirtless]

Indeed. At full auto, 30 rounds lasts about two seconds.

Not for Rambo. His magazines last however long it takes to kill all the bad guys in his immideate area. A lot of research went into the development of his weapons.

[Stravo]

Topic Split from Democrats losing Middle Class thread. Ahh...the turns a topic can take are always refreshing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

None, which is why they should not be banned. If they can do the SAME job as a conventional rifle then they don't create any greater risk to the user or the surrounding area and thus should not be banned on trivial things like looks.

OK, now you are just being confusing. You admit that "assault weapons" have absolutely no practical application, yet you argue that this is why they shouldn't be banned? What kind of logic is that?

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate they represent such a statistical and practical threat to society that they must be taken from the people.

They can be used just as conventional rifles for hunting and sport shooting, and can also be used in defense of one's home. The sole difference between a traditional-looking 5.56 wooden-furniture semi-auto rifle and an AR-15 is the AR has lots of plastic, a pistol grip. and a detachable box with more ammo.

Semi-automatic rifles are not suitable for most crimes. Shotguns and handguns are far more affective close-range anti-personnel firearms. About the only thing they're good for is sniping, which is not going to go away unless you want to ban everyone's everytype of long-range rifle (to boot, the big .30 hunting rifles have not been banned, and they have much longer range and stopping power than an AR-15).

If there is no reason to ban 5.56 hunting rifles made of wood, there's no justification to ban cosmetically different "assault weapons" with a detachable box.

Also, if you can get a rifle that does the same thing legally, which also has no practical application by your own admission, by the way, then why don't you go out and buy one of those? It can't possibly be a simple matter of looks, since a person who actually intends to use a weapon doesn't care about looks, just performance, yet you have such a hard-on for getting an "assault weapon" rather than go out and buy a rifle with what you claim is identical performance. This I don't understand. You must not want such a weapon to defend your home, but for some other reason, since if you were serious about defending your home, you wouldn't care what you had, as long as it gets the job done.

I love the anti-gun crowd's "justify owning anything that spits bullets." Sorry bub, but the whole point of this debate is it was bad legislation and invasive to ban a family of firearms practically identical in utilization to remaining-legal ones, just for looks. Maybe someone prefers an AR-15 because they grew up using one, like the detachable box, or feel that the balance and handling is superior. Maybe others disagree. Point is, the government shouldn't take away that choice because the AR-15 fucking looks different.