Should 'assault style' rifles be available at shooting ranges but private ownership of them be banned?
Yes make them available at shooting ranges
21.4% (18)
21.4% (18)
Allow private ownership
58.3% (49)
58.3% (49)
No they should be completely banned
20.2% (17)
20.2% (17)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should 'assault style' rifles be available at shooting ranges but private ownership of them banned.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hi,
This thread is about wether 'assault style'rifles should be made available at shooting ranges where they can be used under the supervision of a range officer but private ownership of them banned.

Under heavy regulation and an excellent tracking system (preferably with GPS tags in addition to serial numbers), I don't see why not.

Define "Assault style"

Well, I'll say it again, but if you only need such a weapon for target shooting, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to own one, on the condition to keep it locked up at the range while it's not in use.

It's what I'd prefer for all guns, actually. That'd be a measure to improve my country's gun control.

image

Not this again. In before thread-derail?
Yeah, in before thread-derail.

OT: Sure. Along with all other guns.

Allow private ownership, they kill less people than handguns and look really good on a proper wall mount.

INB4 Blah derails the thread.............again. I have actually lost track of how many times its happened now.

Allow Private Ownership. They are only used in high-profile shootings, but they are used very little in general crime (as in, more people get killed by people with thier bar hands than by semi-auto rifles).

Hell, lets take that even further. I am ok with people owning ANYTHING they want short of heavy artillery and guided missiles. That is actually how it is in my state (Kansas). Machine Guns are fully legalized here, so as far as the government of Kansas is concerned

should be just as easy to own as

and we have a lower murder rate than the US average and haven't had a mass killing in 150 years.....and that one used a broadsword. You are also allowed to own Tanks, with the condition that you can't drive it on public roads (due to being a hazard to other drivers and the weight of the tank). And you can own ANYTHING gun-wise as long as it shoots a shell at/less than 40mm in diameter (meaning your M-60 Patton with its 90mm gun must be disarmed, but your M-8 Greyhound can keep its 37mm gun....and can drive on the road due to having wheels instead of tracks.) You can also use explosives as well, but there are 2 conditions: A) You are on 20 acres of land with the owners consent and B) You have permission from the fire chief of your area (ie, there is no Fire warning, the wind is light, etc to reduce chance of fire) and have fire crews on standby (small fireworks are excempt unless there is a Fire Warning).

Oh yes, did I mention the only things above that require a state level permit is the tanks......and said permit is a drivers license. Of course, for the machine guns and other automatic weapons, you still need to fill out all the federal paperwork (and even though we ALLOW newer than 1984 full autos, they are even harder to find than Pre-1984 full autos).

God, I love Kansas.

Champthrax:
Define "Assault style"

Yeah, that's what we need, another meaningless definition.

BOOM headshot65:
Machine Guns are fully legalized here, so as far as the government of Kansas is concerned

should be just as easy to own as

Really? I thought blackpowder weapons didn't even count as firearms in the US, they were completely unrestricted.

BOOM headshot65:
Oh yes, did I mention the only things above that require a state level permit is the tanks......and said permit is a drivers license. Of course, for the machine guns and other automatic weapons, you still need to fill out all the federal paperwork (and even though we ALLOW newer than 1984 full autos, they are even harder to find than Pre-1984 full autos).

I thought post 1986 civilian automatic weapons were totally banned at a federal level in the US.

thaluikhain:

Really? I thought blackpowder weapons didn't even count as firearms in the US, they were completely unrestricted.

Well, the point I was actually trying to make is that as far as the state of Kansas is concerned, machine guns should not require a permit to own, or have to have it registered, the idea being that they would be so expensive, both in terms of ammo/parts and the gun itself, would cause them to self-regulate themselves, were the only people who would have them are richer people who would be unlikely to commit crime.

I thought post 1986 civilian automatic weapons were totally banned at a federal level in the US.

Techinally, they are. While the state of Kansas has very little laws concerning any guns (including explosive launchers and full-autos), the Feds still say that we have to follow their rules, meaning they are still REALLY hard to get and even more expensive. While its not impossible to get newer guns, its very rare. Although, we were able to get exceptions for gun ranges to have rental guns newer than 1986 (there is a gun show in the next town over that has SMG's for rent. Too bad I dont have the money to do that).

BOOM headshot65:

thaluikhain:

Really? I thought blackpowder weapons didn't even count as firearms in the US, they were completely unrestricted.

Well, the point I was actually trying to make is that as far as the state of Kansas is concerned, machine guns should not require a permit to own, or have to have it registered, the idea being that they would be so expensive, both in terms of ammo/parts and the gun itself, would cause them to self-regulate themselves, were the only people who would have them are richer people who would be unlikely to commit crime.

Really? Does that apply to just machine guns, or any weapon firing more than one bullet at a time?

BOOM headshot65:
While its not impossible to get newer guns, its very rare.

Ah, ok, didn't know that.

thaluikhain:

Really? Does that apply to just machine guns, or any weapon firing more than one bullet at a time?

They are techinally the same thing as far as the state is concerned (unless it is multiple barrels, such as a double barrel shotgun. Obviously, Miniguns, etc. are not under this exception). Ironically, the most restricted is black powder rifles, were you need to take safetly classes and such on thier useage. Although, that is more of an instance of it being a weapon dangerous to the operator, so its a safety thing. Here a links about the laws here.

Yes I would be all for that, I would even go as far to say that we could allow well regulated machines guns in certain shooting ranges.

Freedom rental by the hour, that's a whole new market to tap into. Just ban everything privately and then people can go somewhere to pay for the privilege to remember what being free is like.

AgedGrunt:
Freedom rental by the hour, that's a whole new market to tap into. Just ban everything privately and then people can go somewhere to pay for the privilege to remember what being free is like.

Because if you can't shoot up classrooms full of kids with fully automatic rifles, then you are a slave to the government.

Am I getting this whole gun lobby conservative thing right?

Blablahb:

AgedGrunt:
Freedom rental by the hour, that's a whole new market to tap into. Just ban everything privately and then people can go somewhere to pay for the privilege to remember what being free is like.

Because if you can't shoot up classrooms full of kids with fully automatic rifles, then you are a slave to the government.

Am I getting this whole gun lobby conservative thing right?

Why do you always ask that? NOBODY wants people to shoot up classrooms, not even the NRA. How can I prove that? They said to put an armed police officer in schools and that's exactly what some schools are doing. Also not all of us gun supporters are conservative, I'm liberal on a lot of issues like abortions and stem cell research. I'm probably more liberal than I am conservative.

Xan Krieger:
Why do you always ask that? NOBODY wants people to shoot up classrooms, not even the NRA.

It's confronting people with the consequences of what they want. A consequence of free gun ownership are spree shootings. Endorse gun ownership, endorse spree shootings.

Don't want to endorse spree shootings? Then don't endorse gun ownership. Simple.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Why do you always ask that? NOBODY wants people to shoot up classrooms, not even the NRA.

It's confronting people with the consequences of what they want. A consequence of free gun ownership are spree shootings. Endorse gun ownership, endorse spree shootings.

Don't want to endorse spree shootings? Then don't endorse gun ownership. Simple.

So endorse alcohol or cars and endorse drunk driving, doesn't seem right. There are positive and negative consequences of everything you can endorse.

Xan Krieger:
So endorse alcohol or cars and endorse drunk driving, doesn't seem right. There are positive and negative consequences of everything you can endorse.

You may have noticed how giving drinks to a current driver would result in a fine or worse, public drunkness is not allowed, and a whole host of other restrictions on alcohol.

While glasses of beers aren't known to murder dozens of innocent children in the latest second amendment solution. Guns are.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
So endorse alcohol or cars and endorse drunk driving, doesn't seem right. There are positive and negative consequences of everything you can endorse.

You may have noticed how giving drinks to a current driver would result in a fine or worse, public drunkness is not allowed, and a whole host of other restrictions on alcohol.

While glasses of beers aren't known to murder dozens of innocent children in the latest second amendment solution. Guns are.

And at the same time you need the proper permits to get a gun including a background check and now I think a mental health evaluation. Also shooting people is illegal unless they do something like break into your house or try to kill you.

ravenshrike:

Xan Krieger:

Blablahb:
Because if you can't shoot up classrooms full of kids with fully automatic rifles, then you are a slave to the government.

Am I getting this whole gun lobby conservative thing right?

Why do you always ask that? NOBODY wants people to shoot up classrooms, not even the NRA.

I've decided to just ignore B. He's either a magnificient troll or truly insane.

I doubt he's either (and you're breaking the CoC, by the way), he's just stuck on the same track over and over again.
..Then again, so are any topics we get here.

im all for letting americans have what ever the hell they want for home defence without restrictions at all. that said im australian, have no plans to ever visit the usa ever again and it would be interesting to watch the news.

realistically and more seriously its pointless doing anything while you have that many weapons in circulation and that grandfather loophole

No the people who founded this country does not intend for them to be used as target shooting even if that is a hobby many people enjoy, and also happen to do in their own free time, and don't want to charged for doing it. It was intended to remind our government not to take our rights away, and it backs our bill of rights. Did it also ever occur to people that people may shoot in their backyards.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
So endorse alcohol or cars and endorse drunk driving, doesn't seem right. There are positive and negative consequences of everything you can endorse.

You may have noticed how giving drinks to a current driver would result in a fine or worse, public drunkness is not allowed, and a whole host of other restrictions on alcohol.

While glasses of beers aren't known to murder dozens of innocent children in the latest second amendment solution. Guns are.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-24/china-car-accident-kills-11-children-in-jiangxi-radio-reports.html

Semi-automatic weapons should be banned or tightly regulated, so yes,they should only be available at shooting ranges (and heavily guarded at that).

There is literally no plausible reason that means most citizens will need a semi-automatic weapon (2nd Amendment doesn't count because I'm British, and neither does self-defense as you're just going to escalate the situation). If you're a farmer & need a gun to shoot pests or want to go hunting, get a shotgun or single-round rifle, because if you're spraying suppressive fire at the rabbits, you're doing it wrong.

It's all about balancing risk vs benefit. I think guns are really cool and fun to fire, but I don't own one because I don't have any use for it and it has the potential to cause severe harm to others. If I want to shoot one I'll go to a club that will use non-assault weapons and safely store everything.

I'm going to make this simple: If some yokel in the US Military gets a set of 30 round magazines, I get a set of 30 round magazines.

That is probably as simple as someone could get when explaining the Second Amendment.

Well I think civilians should be able to keep semiautomatic rifles that accept standard capacity magazines and have fancy multiple fancy/scary looking attachments if thats what you mean.

No offense but could you give a more generic question? "Assault style?" I know about assault rifles: firearms capable of select fire of semi and fully automatic or burst fire. "Assault weapons": rifles that resemble an assault rifle only by its features such as the barrel shroud, shape, color, and other cosmetics that do not effect the function. But these weapons only fire in semiautomatic(, one boom per pull of the trigger.) I am in favor of private ownership of any and all smallarms(, rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machineguns.) Why? To overthrow a tyrannical government and SHTF scenarios. Don't say that it's impossible for a tyrannical government in the U.S. or that I'm off my meds. After WW2 a city level government had set up a tyrannical state in the U.S. and citizens used military grade weapons of the time to restore order. Nobody got seriously hurt in the one engagement. The shootout was known as The Battle of Athens. A SHTF scenario is when all Hell breaks loose, The L.A. riot, Katrina, etc. You need a "assault style" rifle to fend off a mob of people that want to hurt you and your loved ones. Mobs of people are known to run at the sound of multiple gunshots in quick succession. This can be done easily with an "assault style" rifle.

Xan Krieger:
Am I getting this whole gun lobby conservative thing right?

Why do you always ask that? NOBODY wants people to shoot up classrooms, not even the NRA.[/quote]Then why is the NRA consistently trying to stop everything that would prevent school shootings and instead want scapegoat measures like banning videogames, or adding another body to the pile in the form of an armed guard (who are just as likely to go postal and embark on a second amendment rampage through a school) in every classroom.

Also, plenty of gun owners want to shoot up schools. How could there be school shootings in the first place otherwise? There's just no way that one can argue arming all potential school shooters so it keeps happening, but at the same time claim to be in favour of making it stop.

That's like me supporting a law that bans all abortion, but claiming I'm in favour of human rights. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

Xan Krieger:
And at the same time you need the proper permits to get a gun including a background check and now I think a mental health evaluation. Also shooting people is illegal unless they do something like break into your house or try to kill you.

You can get around that by gun shows, or having someone purchase it for you. Or just by getting your hands on another weapon, since there are plenty.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Am I getting this whole gun lobby conservative thing right?

Why do you always ask that? NOBODY wants people to shoot up classrooms, not even the NRA.

Then why is the NRA consistently trying to stop everything that would prevent school shootings and instead want scapegoat measures like banning videogames, or adding another body to the pile in the form of an armed guard (who are just as likely to go postal and embark on a second amendment rampage through a school) in every classroom.

Also, plenty of gun owners want to shoot up schools. How could there be school shootings in the first place otherwise? There's just no way that one can argue arming all potential school shooters so it keeps happening, but at the same time claim to be in favour of making it stop.

That's like me supporting a law that bans all abortion, but claiming I'm in favour of human rights. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

Xan Krieger:
And at the same time you need the proper permits to get a gun including a background check and now I think a mental health evaluation. Also shooting people is illegal unless they do something like break into your house or try to kill you.

You can get around that by gun shows, or having someone purchase it for you. Or just by getting your hands on another weapon, since there are plenty.[/quote]Why did you leave out the part of my post that defeats your reply? You don't agree with arming police officers? Do you agree with arming soldiers? Also can you prove adding police to schools is a bad idea? There's a million possible solutions and the NRA is supporting at least one of them.
"Also, plenty of gun owners want to shoot up schools"
Now this claim really needs some proof.

Also on that subject
"You may have noticed how giving drinks to a current driver would result in a fine or worse, public drunkness is not allowed, and a whole host of other restrictions on alcohol."
But at the same time you can buy beer at a store and drink and drive later or you can stumble out of bar to your car, you can drink in public like I sometimes do with my neighbors, you can drink underage like me and everyone I know did at some point.

Blablahb:
You can get around that by gun shows, or having someone purchase it for you. Or just by getting your hands on another weapon, since there are plenty.

I've always held it remarkable how gun critics will complain that people go around the law yet continue to go blue in the face lobbying for more of it. Like locking the wheels up on a sheet of ice.

Really we all know how drug bans have curbed possession and trafficking is totally not a thing.

AgedGrunt:
I've always held it remarkable how gun critics will complain that people go around the law yet continue to go blue in the face lobbying for more of it. Like locking the wheels up on a sheet of ice.

I advocate working laws, where there either are no loopholes, or they're extremely difficult and costly to get through.

Also your other example shoots itself in the foot: Merely the fact that drugs get seized at all proves that drug trafficking and use are reduced by the ban. And much like it should be with guns, it doesn't matter if it's 100,1% effective or not, drugs need to be illegal because of the damage they cause to people and society.

If we apply your logic, rape should be legalised because despite it being a crime, there's still sex offenders, and rape destroys fewer lives than gun ownership does. You know that your argument there was just plain invalid.

thaluikhain:

Champthrax:
Define "Assault style"

Yeah, that's what we need, another meaningless definition.

BOOM headshot65:
Machine Guns are fully legalized here, so as far as the government of Kansas is concerned

should be just as easy to own as

Really? I thought blackpowder weapons didn't even count as firearms in the US, they were completely unrestricted.

BOOM headshot65:
Oh yes, did I mention the only things above that require a state level permit is the tanks......and said permit is a drivers license. Of course, for the machine guns and other automatic weapons, you still need to fill out all the federal paperwork (and even though we ALLOW newer than 1984 full autos, they are even harder to find than Pre-1984 full autos).

I thought post 1986 civilian automatic weapons were totally banned at a federal level in the US.

Only guns from before 1890s (?) are not restricted.

Because lets face it, guns from before that time are basically collector's items that cost around 5-17,000$ a piece and tend to be very fragile, and very few would have the balls to even fire something like that.

One wrong move and you are out of a 17,000$ antique and are stuck in a hospital while a doctor takes out shrapnel from your face.

Sniperexpert:
Hi,
This thread is about wether 'assault style'rifles should be made available at shooting ranges where they can be used under the supervision of a range officer but private ownership of them banned.

Assault rifles are only automatic military rifles. Guns that were already illegal in America.

Assault gun bans just ban how the gun looks. A common AR bullet is actually less powerful than the common hunting cartridge, which used to be a military rifle cartridge.

So "assault" bans are completely meaningless because they use the "rule of cool" fallacy.

Blablahb:
I advocate working laws, where there either are no loopholes, or they're extremely difficult and costly to get through.

Prohibition didn't work. Drug bans do not work. Gun bans don't either. Your idea of "working law" is like throwing tire spikes across public roads to save lives.

Blablahb:
Also your other example shoots itself in the foot: Merely the fact that drugs get seized at all proves that drug trafficking and use are reduced by the ban. And much like it should be with guns, it doesn't matter if it's 100,1% effective or not, drugs need to be illegal because of the damage they cause to people and society.

If we apply your logic, rape should be legalised because despite it being a crime, there's still sex offenders, and rape destroys fewer lives than gun ownership does. You know that your argument there was just plain invalid.

So you make things illegal and then sick law enforcement after contraband, they find it, and you get to say "here, we've reduced crime". What part of that makes sense?

And I see it's back once again: gun ownership = legalizing rape

I guess that goes right up there with "fuck the police", because they're little more than thugs legally afforded rape tools (ironically the only ones anti-gun people allow to have firearms).

Ultratwinkie:

Only guns from before 1890s (?) are not restricted.

Because lets face it, guns from before that time are basically collector's items that cost around 5-17,000$ a piece and tend to be very fragile, and very few would have the balls to even fire something like that.

One wrong move and you are out of a 17,000$ antique and are stuck in a hospital while a doctor takes out shrapnel from your face.

Someone doesn't watch Pawn Stars. ;)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked