So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

I have a related question someone might answer here; Are hand-grenades (frags or others) legal to own as a civilian?
If no, why not?
Why can't I own a Bazooka? Or a tank?
If all weapons are tools, and tools depend on the user, and we shouldn't limit freedom of self-defense, I see no reason to limit the sale of these things either.

I have mostly stopped caring about the US gun-debate, but I find it amusing that some would defend their right to own X destructive weapon with 'it's a tool, and any tool can be misused. Like my car, my car can be used for mass-slaugther as well'.
If this is your defense, then I demand to own a tank. Oh, I will get proper training, and licensing. But I demand to have the right to own one. To protect my family, of course.

I think there's a case for farmers - I learnt that much on my extensive thread on this topic in Off Topic Discussion - having rifles - but that said I'm not sure anything more than a bolt-action rifle would ever be warranted.

Even the Tec-9 used in the Columbine Massacre should be stricken from the markets - what's the justification for a Tec 9?

A little pistol in each house, I can see. America is after all flooded with weapons and if people are going to cry if they get told they can't use guns then let them.

I think the ultimate solution just now would be to do what they did with assault rifles for everything other than pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles and semi automatic pistols - ban production and sale for anything made before 2012. That'd stop this ridiculous proliferation of guns but let the pro-gun lobby keep their boom-booms.

If you've ever been in the military, then you know the value of having a high-powered and accurate rifle that is light and mobile; and can also defeat most low level body armor. If you have to defend yourself against other people with assault rifles, and all you have is a handgun, you're in some pretty deep doo doo.

Now I may never find myself in that situation, but if I do I can protect my own ass. My own ass, at the end of the day, is what matters most.

Anyone believing things are stable and always will be, that the government or police will protect be able to protect you, is foolish. The whole system is teetering on the edge right now, population is out of control and economy is in the toilet being kept alive by Fed monopoly money for 4 years. This is unlike any other point in history, this is not normal, these are dangerous times.

Realitycrash:
snip

If you were in Kansas, yeah. You can own hand grenades, tanks, machineguns, etc. Although, we did draw the line at guided missiles and heavy artillery, so no Stingers or 155mm howitzers. There are, however, some conditions.

The tank must be disarmed. The cannon must have the breach removed, all machineguns must be removed, and you can not drive it under its own power on public roads, it must be moved on a trailer.

Any explosives can be set off at any time, but only on land totalling over 20 acres and with the consent of the owner of said land. With the exception of rockets, all explosive launchers must be less than 40mm in diameter.

Machineguns must comply with federal limit. (Need permission of local police/sheriff, made before 1986, ATF stamp tax, etc.)

So, remember, MOVE TO KANSAS (shameless self advertising)

BOOM headshot65:

Realitycrash:
snip

If you were in Kansas, yeah. You can own hand grenades, tanks, machineguns, etc. Although, we did draw the line at guided missiles and heavy artillery, so no Stingers or 155mm howitzers. There are, however, some conditions.

The tank must be disarmed. The cannon must have the breach removed, all machineguns must be removed, and you can not drive it under its own power on public roads, it must be moved on a trailer.

Any explosives can be set off at any time, but only on land totalling over 20 acres and with the consent of the owner of said land. With the exception of rockets, all explosive launchers must be less than 40mm in diameter.

Machineguns must comply with federal limit. (Need permission of local police/sheriff, made before 1986, ATF stamp tax, etc.)

So, remember, MOVE TO KANSAS (shameless self advertising)

That is actually...Kind of cool. Still, it wasn't my point of argument. My point is that if we are going to have weapons for 'self-defense', and a weapon is only a 'tool' which can be 'used or misused, like any tool'. why set the bar as low as a hand-gun? Why not let everyone arm themselves to the teeth?

See, people who argue that weapons are a 'tool', argue implicitly that we can not assume that people will use tools for criminal actions.
I find that a positively ludicrous argument, and I am fine with limiting the freedom of everyone, since some 'tools' are going to get misused by criminals or morons.
So if anyone out there would like to use this argument, I want to know why I can't own a fully armed, functional tank for the purpose of self-defense.

Blablahb:

dyre:
If by assault rifle you mean mid to high caliber rifle with selective fire (semi auto and full auto / burst), then yeah, I don't really see why a civilian would need an assault rifle. Though, I don't really see how full automatic fire would really help a crazy guy gun down civilians. It's not about how many bullets you can put down range (or at school children, in this case); it's how many actually hit.

Same accuracy at a higher firing speed and larger clip = more deaths.

Heck, even pumping around lead in a full classroom without any accuracy is going to claim lives.

It's not the same accuracy though; you lose a lot of accuracy thanks to the recoil when you shoot full auto. Though, maybe the gunman could use short bursts on moving targets or on people he wants to put down fast. Still, I think in a hypothetical situation in which I were gunning down unarmed civilians, I'd probably mostly take single shots.

Anyway, like I said, there's no good reason for civilians to have that kind of capability anyway, so by all means ban them. I don't think the assault weapons ban covers magazine capacity btw. Though maybe it should. Here in NJ our rifle mags are capped at 15 rounds.

Tuesday Night Fever:

dyre:
On a random note...didn't the guy shoot up the school with a pair of handguns? And not, you know, an M-16?

He had two handguns with him, a 10mm Glock 20 and a 9mm Sig-Sauer, but most of the murders were committed with a .223 Bushmaster XM-15 rifle.

Oh, he used a Bushmaster AR-15 clone? I see...Bushmaster's probably going to get some pretty bad PR about this, lol. Though, I should add that the assault weapons ban wouldn't really change much for Bushmaster guns...they really only violate the parts where the gun can't have a pistol grip and a collapsing stock at the same time, neither of which makes the gun more deadly or efficient.

It's none of your business why a person chooses to own an assault rifle, OP. "Need" does not, nor should it ever, enter into the equation. If a man has to suddenly excuse his own rights, then something has gone horribly wrong. Condemning a man because he has the possibility of committing a crime is morally disgusting.

Blablahb:

al4674:

al4674:
1. No guarantee that this will work. Prohibition rarely works in this country

What do you base that on? Gun bans in other countries like Belgium or Australia were a smashing succes. There's no reason to assume it wouldn't work in the US. For that to hold true, a gun ban would've needed to result in no weapons being handed in at all. Call it an assumption, but I'm thinking not literally everyone is going to risk going to prison. People quite simply do disarm, and the numbers of deaths and other firearms-related violence does decrease.

Decrease quite spectacularly even, if the recent Belgian example is to be believe, where gun restrictions (on top of an already restrictive policy) cut their gun crime in half.

Prohibition on alcohol led to rampant alcohol abuse and even large numbers of people who had never seriously drank before suddenly became addicts. The alcohol industry's profit line was raised considerably (Many of the noteable gangers like Al Capone were raking in $2 billion off speakeasy sales (Which was in 1920~. Adjusted for inflation, that number would be roughly 22.2 billion). It was so bad that the government started having speakeasy owners executed as well as distributing poisoned alcohol, which had a death toll in the thousands. Alcohol sales rose regardless up until when prohibition was repealed, at which point sales dropped to pre-prohibition levels and gangsters stopped being as much of an issue because they went back to selling hard drugs and such, which didn't sell nearly as well as alcohol.

One source: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf

I can't remember the name of the state, but one of our 50 tried to place heavy restrictions on guns. Gun violence shot up drastically and the number of guns in the state increased pretty noticeably.

Basically, Americans are just really fucking bad at following directions. Even the threat of being executed by the government if you don't comply only seems to make them want to do it more.

[quote="Midnight Crossroads" post="528.396501.16146870"]It's none of your business why a person chooses to own an assault rifle, OP. "Need" does not, nor should it ever, enter into the equation. If a man has to suddenly excuse his own rights, then something has gone horribly wrong. Condemning a man because he has the possibility of committing a crime is morally disgusting.

Not really. Not acting on strong evidence that suggests the person will commit what is considered to be a horrific crime (I'm not saying that simply buying an assault rifle and/or weapon falls under this category) is far more morally reprehensible than not bothering to act until the murders have already taken place.

dyre:

Oh, he used a Bushmaster AR-15 clone? I see...Bushmaster's probably going to get some pretty bad PR about this, lol. Though, I should add that the assault weapons ban wouldn't really change much for Bushmaster guns...they really only violate the parts where the gun can't have a pistol grip and a collapsing stock at the same time, neither of which makes the gun more deadly or efficient.

They're probably used to the bad PR by now. I'm pretty sure the "DC Sniper" also used a Bushmaster rifle.

And honestly, if the old Assault Weapons Ban went active again, they'd probably just start using fixed stocks.

Blablahb:
Not true. Self-defense with guns is a myth, and the number of additional deaths easily outweighs the hypothetical situation of effective self-defense ever occuring.

...

Proof that self-defense with guns is a myth.

Really? Because I'm living proof of it not being a myth. Twice, actually.

The first time was two years ago. Me and two of my coworkers stopped at a restaurant after work to get something to eat, and decided to walk to a bar down the street to hang out afterward. While walking to the bar a man confronted us with a knife and tried to mug us. I acted like I was reaching for my wallet, and drew my USP instead. Told the guy to drop the knife, get on the ground, and put his hands on his head and kept watch while one of my friends called the police.

The second time was a few months ago. I'm a night-owl, I stay up way later than I probably should. It's not uncommon for me to still be awake at 5am. One night at around 2am I was getting thirsty, so I started to go downstairs to grab a drink. I was the only one home at the time, and I heard movement coming from downstairs. I grabbed my shotgun and loaded a few shells. The way my home is designed, any noise made while standing on the staircase tends to echo, so while on the stairs, I racked the slide of the shotgun as loudly as I could. Sure enough, whoever was in my home fled. Turns out they had picked the locks on our back door. Home invasions like this have been on the rise for several years now in this area, so I replaced the doors and their locks and don't regret buying the shotgun at all.

I've never fired a gun in anger. Whatever you may want to believe about people who own firearms for defense, I don't want to ever fire one in anger. I have no desire to kill a fellow human being. The way I see it is that I have an obligation to defend myself, those I love, and my property to the best of my abilities. I'm not physically threatening and would be worthless in a fist or knife fight, but a firearm allows me to equal the playing field.

I wish you were right about people not needing firearms for defense. I really do. But right now, I just don't see it as anything more than idealism.

Realitycrash:
If this is your defense, then I demand to own a tank. Oh, I will get proper training, and licensing. But I demand to have the right to own one. To protect my family, of course.

You do have the right to own one. Hell, Arnold Schwarzenegger owns at least one tank, and I used to know a guy who bought a British "Ferret" armored scout vehicle.

That thing was actually deemed to be road-legal since it's not technically a tank.

As for stuff like rocket launchers and grenade launchers and whatnot... it depends on the laws in your area. I know in some areas it's perfectly legal to own and operate, say, a 40mm M-79 grenade launcher (assuming you're properly licensed and follow the guidelines for its proper use). Getting the ammunition is the hard part, though. Since the market for it is so tiny, the price is astronomical. It makes operating a .50BMG weapon look cheap, and those rounds are like $2.50 a pop.

denseWorm:
Even the Tec-9 used in the Columbine Massacre should be stricken from the markets - what's the justification for a Tec 9?

A little pistol in each house, I can see. America is after all flooded with weapons and if people are going to cry if they get told they can't use guns then let them.

That's either hypocrisy or ignorance showing. The Intratec TEC-9 is a small handgun. It's a 9x19mm parabellum, blowback-operated, semi-automatic handgun that comes with a 10-round magazine (though larger ones are available, like with most firearms out there). Contrary to what the media wants you to believe, the Intratec TEC-9 isn't a fully automatic weapon. Can it be converted to automatic with the proper technical know-how? Sure. But many semi-automatic weapons can be as well, though doing so drastically cuts down on the reliability of the weapon, and also, it's very illegal to do so. Pretty much the only reason why the Intratec TEC-9 gets a bad reputation these days is because of Columbine and the gun's popularity with criminals. You know why it's popular with criminals? Because it's absurdly cheap, or at least, it was at the time. With firearms, you kinda get what you pay for. The TEC-9 was notorious for its shoddy construction and lack of reliability, so it's not even a particularly effective weapon. A person with a 9x19mm Glock-17, another "small handgun," has the potential to be far deadlier. And Glock-17's are way more common than TEC-9's.

If people are going to limit the ownership rights of their fellow countrymen, they should take the time to actually get some familiarity with what they're trying to ban. This forum gets bent all out of shape when some idiot on FOX News rants about Mass Effect being a sex simulator and tries to get video games banned or heavily censored... but then they turn around and do the same exact thing to other products that they don't like and look every bit as bad doing it.

Tuesday Night Fever:

Realitycrash:
If this is your defense, then I demand to own a tank. Oh, I will get proper training, and licensing. But I demand to have the right to own one. To protect my family, of course.

You do have the right to own one. Hell, Arnold Schwarzenegger owns at least one tank, and I used to know a guy who bought a British "Ferret" armored scout vehicle.

But I can push it even further. True, I did not expect that to be actually legal, but like I previously stated: If a weapon is a tool, and any tool can be misused, why should any weapon be illegal?
It's just that argument that bugs me. Like I have said before; I really don't care about the general pro or con gun-debate in the US any longer. But I still find some of the arguments absurd (arguments made from both sides).

Realitycrash:
But I can push it even further. True, I did not expect that to be actually legal, but like I previously stated: If a weapon is a tool, and any tool can be misused, why should any weapon be illegal?
It's just that argument that bugs me. Like I have said before; I really don't care about the general pro or con gun-debate in the US any longer. But I still find some of the arguments absurd (arguments made from both sides).

Frankly, I don't think any weapon should be illegal. As I stated in a previous post, I do support gun control. Sensible gun control. Increase restrictions, make the screening process far more strict, make the waiting period longer, hell... make the guns themselves or the ammunition for them more expensive. Make it significantly harder to get guns, but still possible for those willing to put in the time, effort, and money. Arbitrary bans on features that don't even play into the lethality of a weapon solve nothing. Arbitrary bans on certain types of firearms when all firearms are capable of killing also won't solve anything.

At the end of the day, a firearm, like any dangerous item, is only as dangerous as the person holding it. And the government should be looking to keep them out of the hands of people who are dangerous, rather than out of the hands of people like me who are going to be responsible with them.

To lighten the mood up a bit, here's an old joke from Chris Rock about gun control. I feel it's relevant.

I actually agree with him to some degree. If ammunition was absurdly expensive, I'd still have my guns for defense purposes. If it's between death or a $5000 bullet to save my life, I'd gladly pay the $5000.

Realitycrash:

Tuesday Night Fever:

Realitycrash:
If this is your defense, then I demand to own a tank. Oh, I will get proper training, and licensing. But I demand to have the right to own one. To protect my family, of course.

You do have the right to own one. Hell, Arnold Schwarzenegger owns at least one tank, and I used to know a guy who bought a British "Ferret" armored scout vehicle.

But I can push it even further. True, I did not expect that to be actually legal, but like I previously stated: If a weapon is a tool, and any tool can be misused, why should any weapon be illegal?
It's just that argument that bugs me. Like I have said before; I really don't care about the general pro or con gun-debate in the US any longer. But I still find some of the arguments absurd (arguments made from both sides).

The same could be said of drugs. Things like alcohol and Oxycontin are legal, so why make anything illegal?

Every law is arbitrary in any society that does not base it's justice system around lex talionis, so there doesn't need to be a reason outside of 'It is a law'. The easy way to change a law is to show that public opinion on the matter has changed, which can be done with things such as statistics and arguments if you want. But regardless of how good or bad an idea seems, public opinion is the only thing that really matters in a non-lex talionis society.

Tuesday Night Fever:

Realitycrash:
But I can push it even further. True, I did not expect that to be actually legal, but like I previously stated: If a weapon is a tool, and any tool can be misused, why should any weapon be illegal?
It's just that argument that bugs me. Like I have said before; I really don't care about the general pro or con gun-debate in the US any longer. But I still find some of the arguments absurd (arguments made from both sides).

Frankly, I don't think any weapon should be illegal. As I stated in a previous post, I do support gun control. Sensible gun control. Increase restrictions, make the screening process far more strict, make the waiting period longer, hell... make the guns themselves or the ammunition for them more expensive. Make it significantly harder to get guns, but still possible for those willing to put in the time, effort, and money. Arbitrary bans on features that don't even play into the lethality of a weapon solve nothing. Arbitrary bans on certain types of firearms when all firearms are capable of killing also won't solve anything.

At the end of the day, a firearm, like any dangerous item, is only as dangerous as the person holding it. And the government should be looking to keep them out of the hands of people who are dangerous, rather than out of the hands of people like me who are going to be responsible with them.

To lighten the mood up a bit, here's an old joke from Chris Rock about gun control. I feel it's relevant.

I actually agree with him to some degree. If ammunition was absurdly expensive, I'd still have my guns for defense purposes. If it's between death or a $5000 bullet to save my life, I'd gladly pay the $5000.

Okey, I have to agree, that clip cracked me up. Though, if ammunition were absurdly expensive, it might negate the purpose of owning a gun, as many people would assume that the gun of a regular Joe would never be loaded (as how could they afford it?)

Kopikatsu:

Realitycrash:

Tuesday Night Fever:

You do have the right to own one. Hell, Arnold Schwarzenegger owns at least one tank, and I used to know a guy who bought a British "Ferret" armored scout vehicle.

But I can push it even further. True, I did not expect that to be actually legal, but like I previously stated: If a weapon is a tool, and any tool can be misused, why should any weapon be illegal?
It's just that argument that bugs me. Like I have said before; I really don't care about the general pro or con gun-debate in the US any longer. But I still find some of the arguments absurd (arguments made from both sides).

The same could be said of drugs. Things like alcohol and Oxycontin are legal, so why make anything illegal?

Every law is arbitrary in any society that does not base it's justice system around lex talionis, so there doesn't need to be a reason outside of 'It is a law'. The easy way to change a law is to show that public opinion on the matter has changed, which can be done with things such as statistics and arguments if you want. But regardless of how good or bad an idea seems, public opinion is the only thing that really matters in a non-lex talionis society.

Exactly. Which is why I find the 'Guns are just a tool'-argument silly.

What's wrong with people owning assault weapons? I mean give me a tangible reason, not that it's just your opinion that they're not necessary, why is it a problem?

Realitycrash:
Okey, I have to agree, that clip cracked me up. Though, if ammunition were absurdly expensive, it might negate the purpose of owning a gun, as many people would assume that the gun of a regular Joe would never be loaded (as how could they afford it?)

Honestly, a big part of owning a firearm for self-defense is the threat of what it can do. As previously mentioned, twice now I've defended myself and my property with the aid of firearms, and I've never fired a shot in anger. I hope I never have to. The guy who was trying to rob my home heard me pump a shotgun, but he couldn't have known whether or not it was actually loaded. It comes down to whether or not the criminal feels that the crime they're committing has a payoff that's worth the risk of getting shot. The guy in my house likely heard the shotgun, and decided that what he was doing wasn't worth the potential risk of being peppered with buckshot. I don't blame him; in his shoes I would have fled too.

If the price of ammunition rises, people like me will still be buying it. We may be the exception to the rule, but we're still out there. Every time a criminal has a victim who draws a gun, that criminal is going to have to think hard about whether or not it's worth the risk. It's a deterrent.

For me, firearms have worked as a deterrent. I'm not saying it works for everyone, just that it can work.

I just feel that it'd be a better use of our collective time, effort, and resources to try and figure out what we as a country and a society can do to prevent people from turning to lives of crime, rather than trying to take away individuals' means of defending themselves against criminals. This country has a ridiculously bad tendency to only look at short-term solutions rather than the big picture, and I think this is one of those times.

Realitycrash:

Exactly. Which is why I find the 'Guns are just a tool'-argument silly.

Here's another argument, then. An M1 Garand falls under the definition of an 'Assault Weapon'. Now, I can probably name twenty weapons off the top of my head that are both significantly more deadly than an M1 Garand and completely legal, and would remain legal even if the Assault Weapon ban went through.

So, the Assault Weapon ban is largely pointless and there's no reason to renew it.

Additionally, bans and laws are not applied retroactively. Even if the ban goes into place, someone can take the exact same guns (model-wise) as were used in the Connecticut shooting and keep them legally.

Kopikatsu:

Realitycrash:

Exactly. Which is why I find the 'Guns are just a tool'-argument silly.

Here's another argument, then. An M1 Garand falls under the definition of an 'Assault Weapon'. Now, I can probably name twenty weapons off the top of my head that are both significantly more deadly than an M1 Garand and completely legal, and would remain legal even if the Assault Weapon ban went through.

So, the Assault Weapon ban is largely pointless and there's no reason to renew it.

-Shrugs- I guess we need a law which limits guns compared to lethality in another way without the loopholes, then.
I honestly don't know.

But I think you will find this of interest.

Kopikatsu:

Realitycrash:

Exactly. Which is why I find the 'Guns are just a tool'-argument silly.

Here's another argument, then. An M1 Garand falls under the definition of an 'Assault Weapon'. Now, I can probably name twenty weapons off the top of my head that are both significantly more deadly than an M1 Garand and completely legal, and would remain legal even if the Assault Weapon ban went through.

So, the Assault Weapon ban is largely pointless and there's no reason to renew it.

Doesn't that mean that the system is just broken?

I have a simple question to ask. Guns are for self-defense right? Normally then you don't need automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

P.S: In simple interest, what are those twenty weapons?

Realitycrash:

Kopikatsu:

Realitycrash:

Exactly. Which is why I find the 'Guns are just a tool'-argument silly.

Here's another argument, then. An M1 Garand falls under the definition of an 'Assault Weapon'. Now, I can probably name twenty weapons off the top of my head that are both significantly more deadly than an M1 Garand and completely legal, and would remain legal even if the Assault Weapon ban went through.

So, the Assault Weapon ban is largely pointless and there's no reason to renew it.

-Shrugs- I guess we need a law which limits guns compared to lethality in another way without the loopholes, then.
I honestly don't know.

But I think you will find this of interest.

Lethality wouldn't work, either. Shotgun's main use is self-defense (Rifles are better for hunting not-birds), but you get hit with pellet at 5~ meters? Dead. 100% dead. Even if you were wearing heavy kevlar that stopped the pellets themselves, the force would still cave your chest in. But that's one of the reasons why Shotguns are great. Birdshot doesn't have enough penetration to go through drywall, but is extremely lethal at close range. Even just the sound of a shotgun being cocked is enough to scare away plenty of would-be muggers.

Also, ammo is really where a lot of lethality comes from (Most guns are designed for killing, after all, so they're all going to be really good at it), and high lethality ammo are specifically legal (Like hollow points, which do extreme damage to flesh without much penetration), while teflon-coated rounds (minor damage to flesh with very high penetration) are banned.

Frission:

Kopikatsu:

Realitycrash:

Exactly. Which is why I find the 'Guns are just a tool'-argument silly.

Here's another argument, then. An M1 Garand falls under the definition of an 'Assault Weapon'. Now, I can probably name twenty weapons off the top of my head that are both significantly more deadly than an M1 Garand and completely legal, and would remain legal even if the Assault Weapon ban went through.

So, the Assault Weapon ban is largely pointless and there's no reason to renew it.

Doesn't that mean that the system is just broken?

I have a simple question to ask. Guns are for self-defense right? Normally then you don't need automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

P.S: In simple interest, what are those twenty weapons?

...?? Semi-automatics are definitely needed for both self-defense and hunting. Only allowing civilians to carry bolt action rifles and pump shotguns would be...strange. Fully automatic weapons are very inefficient and have long since fallen out of use (Also probably because they were banned back in the 30's by an entirely different law). While most military rifles (Like the M27, K11, etc) are capable of full auto, they're very rarely used like that in normal situations, since it's meant for suppression as opposed to killing.

For the guns...(Some of the numbers might be wrong)

Remington M870 (Shotgun)
Mossberg 500 Chainsaw (Shotgun)
Glock-17 (Pistol)
.357 Magnum (Revolver)
AR-15/Bushmaster .223 (Semi-auto rifle)
300 Whisper (Semi-auto rifle)
SD40 (Pistol)
SW1911 (Pistol)
Governor (Revolver)
S&W PSX (Semi-auto rifle)
M&P 15PS (Semi-auto rifle)
S&W Compact 9mm (Pistol)
M&P 40 (Pistol)
Winchester Model 1897 (Shotgun)
M&P 15ORC (Semi-auto rifle)

Those are also all guns that either I or people I know own. Except for the Winchester. I wish I had one, but alas, no. (Yes, I know there are only 15 guns listed and not 20.)

Edit: Technically I guess the revolvers would only be more deadly than an M1 Garand with a speed loader.

Frission:
I have a simple question to ask. Guns are for self-defense right? Normally then you don't need automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

I could go with the typical "car" argument and say that most speed limits on the highways around where I live top out at 65MPH, so clearly people don't need to buy cars that can go faster than that considering the number of speed-related fatalities each year.

But I think I'll be direct instead.

One reason: follow-up shots. Many people who own guns are not what I would call proficient with them (frankly, this country needs a better system for training people). If you miss with a weapon that isn't semi-automatic, you're going to need to take precious time to chamber the next round and reacquire your target. If this is done when someone who isn't particularly proficient to begin with is now under additional stress, the person is likely to either make a mistake or simply not have time to fire off that second shot before the aggressor gains the upper hand.

Beyond that, as Kopikatsu said, the ammunition is very important as well. Some rounds are better than others for stopping a target. I carry a handgun that fires .45ACP. This particular round has less penetration that your typical 9x19mm parabellum round, but packs a bit bigger punch at close range. I bought a .45 over a 9mm for exactly that reason. If someone threatens me and I need to draw my gun on them, I don't want to have to fire more than a single shot if I can help it.

For a historical anecdote, look at the .30-caliber M1 Carbine. It's a semi-automatic rifle issued to US troops during WWII and the Korean War. It was often criticized because the rounds themselves simply didn't cause enough damage, and the person wielding it would sometimes have to hit a target 2, 3, 4, etc. times before the target would go down. My grandfather served in Korea and carried an M1 Carbine. Before he passed away a few years ago, he used to joke that he felt his sidearm, a Colt M1911A1 .45ACP handgun, was a better service weapon. He'd joke that a sufficiently thick winter coat would have been enough to save you from his woefully underpowered M1 Carbine.

I can't defend automatic weapons for personal defense, though. They're overkill, and incredibly likely to produce stray bullets that could harm bystanders. If someone wants to take an automatic weapon to a range and tear up some targets with it, that's great. But as a self-defense weapon? No way.

P.S: In simple interest, what are those twenty weapons?

Honestly, you could probably come up with 20 just by listing off various AR-15 clones from different companies. My Colt AR-15 was manufactured during the assault weapons ban. It's the exact same weapon that was produced prior to the ban. The only difference was that it came with a 10-round magazine instead of the typical 30-round magazine. And regardless of the ban, 30-round magazines were still readily available legally. Hell, so were 100-round drums... although Beta-C's are shit.

Automatic weapons are already banned. It's semi-auto where the argument seems to linger. Most handguns (except revolvers) and many rifles (most magazine fed weapons) are semi-auto, meaning for every pull of the trigger, a round is expelled.

I don't think there should be a ban on semi-auto though, all it would do is disarm the American people. If someone wants to commit a mass murder, they'll do it regardless. A guy in China stabbed 20 something people (mostly kids) with a damn knife in under ten minutes. Timothy McVeigh managed to down a whole building and kill a lot of people with a bomb, and they're illegal. I think it is a myth that somehow horrible killings will somehow diminish with a ban on guns (assault rifles in this case.) Murder is at an all time record low in the last forty years and yet every mass killing, however tragic, is used by politicians and people in power to try and limit our rights to own weapons. I don't trust people in power who jump like vultures to exploit deaths, claiming to 'make the people safer' by disarming them.

xDarc:
If you've ever been in the military, then you know the value of having a high-powered and accurate rifle that is light and mobile; and can also defeat most low level body armor. If you have to defend yourself against other people with assault rifles, and all you have is a handgun, you're in some pretty deep doo doo.

Now I may never find myself in that situation, but if I do I can protect my own ass. My own ass, at the end of the day, is what matters most.

Anyone believing things are stable and always will be, that the government or police will protect be able to protect you, is foolish. The whole system is teetering on the edge right now, population is out of control and economy is in the toilet being kept alive by Fed monopoly money for 4 years. This is unlike any other point in history, this is not normal, these are dangerous times.

I entirely agree. People want to keep their damn heads in the sand about what is happening. They don't even realize how close to the fucking edge we are right now. I hope I'm wrong, but there are too many signs that point to the contrary.

beef_razor:
Automatic weapons are already banned.

Sorta. They still can be legally acquired in the United States, though the restrictions on who can get them are much harsher.

Most handguns (except revolvers) and many rifles (most magazine fed weapons) are semi-auto, meaning for every pull of the trigger, a round is expelled.

Revolvers absolutely can be "semi-automatic" in the usual sense. Any revolver with a double-action trigger mechanism will fire the first round, and all subsequent rounds, with nothing more than a trigger pull. It's only single-action revolvers that require the operator to manually cock the hammer back before each shot. These days, single-action revolvers tend not to be as common as double-actions. I've only ever seen single-actions in the possession of collectors. The catch with double-action revolvers is that they tend to have heavier trigger pulls, but I guess revolver owners generally don't seem to mind.

As for 'magazine fed weapons' - most weapons, in general, are fed from a magazine. Even ones that aren't semi-automatic. The tube on a shotgun that holds its shells? That's the shotgun's magazine. The place where you insert a stripper clip of rounds into your old WWI/WWII-era bolt-action rifles like the Springfield M1903? That's referred to as the rifle's magazine. The magazine is just where the ammunition happens to be stored.

And a detachable box magazine (likely what you're referring to) doesn't necessarily indicate that a weapon is semi-automatic. Do you like Counter-Strike at all? The Steyr Scout and the Accuracy International Arctic Warfare Magnum are both examples of bolt-action rifles that feed from detachable box magazines. When I was little my dad actually had a Marlin .22 Magnum bolt-action rifle that fed from a 5-round detachable box magazine that he used to plink cans with down at the local range - though I'm not sure exactly what the specific model of rifle it was, I was too young to really remember.

Murder is at an all time record low in the last forty years and yet every mass killing, however tragic, is used by politicians and people in power to try and limit our rights to own weapons. I don't trust people in power who jump like vultures to exploit deaths, claiming to 'make the people safer' by disarming them.

Violent crime is down in the United States. But that doesn't mean we can't do better. Don't take that as meaning I advocate bans; I don't, and my previous posts should show that. I just don't think sitting on crime statistics and saying, "See, we're doing better!" is a good reason to be complacent when there's still a problem.

But at the same time, it's not like I can't understand the issue. School shootings aren't a recent thing in the United States, it's just that the news media and social media have advanced to the point where coverage of them is practically beginning before the shooting incident is even over. The media whips people up into a massive frenzy, and directs viewers' anger and sorrow toward convenient scapegoats for instant gratification rather than looking for root causes. Everyone's quick to jump on the "GUNS CAUSED THIS!" bandwagon, because deep down no one wants to hear that perhaps it was a part of our society that drove the shooter into committing such an atrocity. Things like this don't happen in a vacuum. Maybe Lanza was abused by his mother, maybe he was bullied, maybe he had mental problems... I don't know. But those are things that society as a whole seems to have a harder time acknowledging than just going with the easy route of "GUNS ARE BAD!" Besides, guns are the "bad guy" that people as a whole can see and point at as a tangible threat that they can do something about. It scares people shitless knowing that maybe what drove that person to evil wasn't something that can be fixed with a simple ban, that maybe the person still would have gone out and murdered anyway - just with something else.

Can I ask a better question? Why do you care why an American get an assault rifle? I mean seriously why do you guys care what a person buys?

beef_razor:

xDarc:
If you've ever been in the military, then you know the value of having a high-powered and accurate rifle that is light and mobile; and can also defeat most low level body armor. If you have to defend yourself against other people with assault rifles, and all you have is a handgun, you're in some pretty deep doo doo.

Now I may never find myself in that situation, but if I do I can protect my own ass. My own ass, at the end of the day, is what matters most.

Anyone believing things are stable and always will be, that the government or police will protect be able to protect you, is foolish. The whole system is teetering on the edge right now, population is out of control and economy is in the toilet being kept alive by Fed monopoly money for 4 years. This is unlike any other point in history, this is not normal, these are dangerous times.

I entirely agree. People want to keep their damn heads in the sand about what is happening. They don't even realize how close to the fucking edge we are right now. I hope I'm wrong, but there are too many signs that point to the contrary.

Yep, it's rather unnerving to read a state supreme court decision ruling that the police have no duty to protect you. The US system is going to cave in sooner rather than later, and to quote Law Abiding Citizen, "it's gonna be biblical." You're looking at civil war in the next ten years, there's no question about it.

Ravinoff:
Yep, it's rather unnerving to read a state supreme court decision ruling that the police have no duty to protect you.

Jeez. I didn't hear about that. Which state was this in, and what was the context?

. . .

And I wonder if this means they'll be using tax dollars to repaint their cars to avoid false advertising.

image

Tuesday Night Fever:

Ravinoff:
Yep, it's rather unnerving to read a state supreme court decision ruling that the police have no duty to protect you.

Jeez. I didn't hear about that. Which state was this in, and what was the context?

. . .

And I wonder if this means they'll be using tax dollars to repaint their cars to avoid false advertising.

image

That'd be Warren Vs. DC, basically the police completely failed to respond to an emergency call. The DC equivalent of the state supreme court ruled that the police "do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals." Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Tuesday Night Fever:

Ravinoff:
Yep, it's rather unnerving to read a state supreme court decision ruling that the police have no duty to protect you.

Jeez. I didn't hear about that. Which state was this in, and what was the context?

. . .

And I wonder if this means they'll be using tax dollars to repaint their cars to avoid false advertising.

image

It was not a just a state court (although I am sure the lower courts have such cases) it was in the Supreme Court.

In the case South v. Maryland (1856) the Supreme Court decided that an officer failing to protect a man is not unlawful. It was backed up by the cases Warren v. District of Columbia where a 911 operator gave officers the wrong information and because of that the officers did not respond with the proper urgency. Also the case Gonzales v. Castle Rock where an ex-husband kidnapped his children from their mother and the police saw the children and refused to take them back. The next day the father showed up at the police station and shot at it. When the officers looked in the back of his truck they found the two children dead.

Basically the decision was that the police have no obligation to protect the individual but only to maintain the general order of society.

No i don't agree on it at all,

I'm quite fond of my Ak-47

and i won't give it up until the bad guy's don't have them either.

and it is also extremely difficult to get a fully automatic weapon anyways.

The high majority of "assault" weapons as you say, are semi-automatic

Although what kind of gun is an issue, I think most of the issue comes from the papers than the guns. The issue needs to be focused on licenses, papers, locks on the guns, properly stored guns, waiting periods, background checks, psychological tests, things of that nature. For the most part, people don't need assault RIFLES, but assault WEAPONS like pistols should be able to be owned with things like I mentioned. I just hope that Obama won't think of instituting the same ban from the 90's especially since we know it didn't make a difference.

Midnight Crossroads:
It's none of your business why a person chooses to own an assault rifle, OP. "Need" does not, nor should it ever, enter into the equation. If a man has to suddenly excuse his own rights, then something has gone horribly wrong. Condemning a man because he has the possibility of committing a crime is morally disgusting.

I agree with this. I do not need to justify my right to anything. To make something illegal, you must thoroughly justify why I cannot own it, and in regards to assault weapons, I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why I should give mine up.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here