Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Gun Policy Debate

  1. Oct 17, 2012 #1
    Irrelevant. You missed what I was referring towards.

    You don't need a shotgun to hunt an animal that is practically unaware or really doesn't care about your presence around it. This is just an opinion, so there is really no argument to be had here.

    I really don't care what makes a great hunting weapon. I still believe they need to be put on a banned list.

    My main point here is to limit the long-guns for civilian use, or simply, ban them.

    I always believed we must start somewhere, so it would be a start to crack down on their weapons.

    Here is a quote from the Police Chief of Miami: "According to Miami Police Chief John Timoney, assault weapons have become “the weapon of choice among gangs here. . . . The guns keep coming in, their prices are dropping.” In Miami, assault weapons were used in about 4 percent of all homicides in 2004 as the weapons ban expired. Now, Timoney says, the number is about 21 percent."

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/14125395-452/police-chiefs-are-right-ban-assault-weapons.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 17, 2012 #2
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    You could reduce a lot of gun violence if you could reduce gang violence was my point.

    Your argument seems more against hunting itself than the firearms. For hunting some game, a shotgun is required.

    An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Mechanically, there's nothing about it that makes it any different really from any other semi-auto hunting rifle.

    I could have a field day with that article, but he sounds like just another one of the numerous police chiefs that don't know what they're talking about on this issue. And the Assault Weapons Ban never actually banned any of the major so-called "assault weapons," it just banned the weapons with certain features. Weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47 were fully legal during the AWB, just you couldn't attach certain things to them.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  4. Oct 17, 2012 #3

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The fact is, you need a shotgun to hunt waterfowl, and in 13 states, you need a shotgun to hunt big game (e.g., deer). Amongst those states, big game hunting with a rifle is illegal in all of Iowa and Ohio, and in big chunks of Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. Swing states.
  5. Oct 17, 2012 #4
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    You have it right, D H. I virtually never hear anybody going after shotguns when talking about banning firearms. Shotguns are not terribly practical for going on shooting sprees, but they have great stopping power when used for home defense. If you use shells and not slugs, you won't be accidentally hitting a neighbor with a missed shot, either.
  6. Oct 17, 2012 #5
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    I don't think anyone who gets shot cares what type of firearm did it.

    So back to debate observations.
    I noticed there were several times when one speaker would say to the other that a statement made was not true.
    I think the fact checkers are going to be busy over the next few days.
  7. Oct 17, 2012 #6
    Absolutely right, on both sides.

    I think it was interesting how Obama spun Romney's politicalization of the Bengazi reaction into such a low blow (and a major point for Obama) when in fact it was Obama who first talked about Romney's reaction to it.
  8. Oct 17, 2012 #7
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    I don't think anyone who gets injured cares what type of weapon did it. Shall we ban kitchen knives too?
  9. Oct 17, 2012 #8
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    There's something to be said of the rather large gulf in killing power between a blade and an AK-47. Ain't you ever heard the saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?
  10. Oct 17, 2012 #9
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    Indians hunted waterfowl with bow and arrows, so you don't NEED a shotgun, you want to use one. My initial point still stands.

    You obviously did not care for the point I was making within that same post. So there is no need for me to concern this aspect of your post until you read that post in its entirety.

    That is more by a 'standard' than an actual necessity.

    I'm pretty sure a police chief knows what type of guns gangs are using...
  11. Oct 17, 2012 #10
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    That's an argument for me to have an AK-47, isnt' it? Here's a massacre with a kitchen knife.
    Osaka school massacre.
  12. Oct 17, 2012 #11
    Re: USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

    How many successful kitchen knife massacres have occurred versus successful assault weapon massacres?

  13. Oct 17, 2012 #12
    Do you think if guns were never invented massacres would not occur or were there massacres before guns even existed and its a sad part of human nature that some individuals cannot function with in society and take it out in violent means?

    Do guns cause massacres or do people or does "society" in your opinion "Angry Citizen"?

    We do not know how many kitchen knife massacres there would be if guns were not an options since they are an option its equivalent to asking how the economy would have done with out the stimulus we can not know since there was a stimulus.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2012
  14. Oct 17, 2012 #13
    Guns make it easier for massacres to occur. Especially if the guns are in the hands of civilian use.
  15. Oct 17, 2012 #14
    It's not an either/or proposition. Assault weapons, which I would want banned, have no particular value for home defense that cannot be replicated with a pistol or shotgun, but are great for mass murder. That is their function.

    If guns did not have the potential for causing a greater share of destruction than non-firearm weaponry, then the military would be carrying katanas. They don't. They carry M16s. They do so for a reason.
  16. Oct 17, 2012 #15
    That has no bearing on your statement about the RATIO of massacres occurring with guns versus mechanical means. Using massacres as logic to ban fire arms is faulty at its core.

    When a katana was the best weapon for rapid violence they were used by the military and by individuals who "snapped".

    If guns did not exist would you be advocating a ban on katana's and saying they provide no greater home defense then a club but are more efficient at killing large numbers of people so they should be banned.

    The argument will always exist in your sentence place superior killing technology A in place of "assault rifles" and less sophisticated technology B in place of knife/pistol.

    Do you have anything more substantial then speculating that people who commit massacres would not if they could not get an assault rifle? or would they just make a bomb or use a sword.

    The point is massacres have and will always happen the tool used to reap destruction comes down to convenience I would rather they have an assault rifle and have a chance of escaping or stopping them then say blowing up a movie theater and having none survive.
  17. Oct 17, 2012 #16
    No, because I recognize the fact that katanas are not to clubs as assault weapons are to pistols.

    Please quote me where I said that.
  18. Oct 17, 2012 #17
    So you are not implying that massacres would occur less if we banned Assault rifles?

    Then why did you even bring them up?
  19. Oct 17, 2012 #18
    I haven't the foggiest if they would or not. I am implying that fewer people would die in such massacres.
  20. Oct 17, 2012 #19
    And I am saying there is no way to prove that either way IMO they are equally likely to use a bomb if they can not get an assault rifle as they are to not commit a massacre and I can make a bomb in an hour at a hardware store but I can not make an assault rifle at least we can track the purchase sale and transport of those.

    We have no way of knowing the impacts on massacre numbers so its a dead end argument. Do you have any other reason to desire the ban on what you consider weapons that civilians do not need?
  21. Oct 17, 2012 #20
    Yes there is. The military uses M16s for a reason. They kill more people in a smaller period of time than Glocks.

    But the vast majority of people cannot. I cannot, and I know more chemistry than the vast majority of human beings on this planet.
  22. Oct 17, 2012 #21

    I was in the army M16's are used when you outnumber your opponent or as a last resort when you are pinned down while you wait for other forces or larger fire power. The strategy is never to Kill more people in a "smaller amount of time" if we know there are more people that need killed we use artillery and do it at a safe distance. You use an M16 over a pistol for its greater accuracy.

    If you are in a fire fight that lasts more then a few seconds something is not going right and you are using suppressive fire to stay alive long enough to resolve the issue i.e. 50 cal machine gun (M2) on a vehicle mount arrives to better eliminate fortified combatants in a building by firing through walls.

    As far as making simple explosives it doesn't take chemistry knowledge just Google.

    The OKC bomb was fertilizer and diesel fuel if I remember correctly what is to stop the Denver movie theater from being a van parked next to the building and blowing up the entire thing?

    Other then massacres do you have an argument?
  23. Oct 17, 2012 #22
    Well, that certainly enhances its killing capacity. Plus an M16 can be used in fully automatic or three-round-burst firing modes, which are preferable to semi-automatic when attempting to inflict mass casualties on unarmed individuals.

    Is there a specific reason to have assault weapons on the streets? They're not effective hunting weapons, they're not effective home defense weapons (a pistol or shotgun is preferable), and though they're fun to shoot, that's not much of a reason to have them around.

    Funny thing is, if you were a liberal trying to ban ALL guns, I'd be just as vehemently opposed. But I don't see any reason to have AK-47s on the streets of America. There is literally no reason to have them, certainly none you've given, and they absolutely are far more deadly than pistols or shotguns owing to their greater accuracy, range, round velocity, weight of projectile, and other factors.
  24. Oct 17, 2012 #23
    While I agree that there's no reason to have them on the streets, the vast majority of gun violence is committed with pistols. So, a ban on assault rifles will have little impact on gun violence in this country.

    So, sure, ban them... but don't expect it to change anything.

    According to this study in California, 90% of gun crimes in 2010 were committed with handguns, and 5% were with assault rifles. I have no reason to believe that California would be somehow skewed towards handguns, but if somebody else comes up with a study that has vastly different percentages, let me know.

    To go back to a previous point, only 2.3% were committed with shotguns, so the statement earlier in this thread that shotguns should be banned is a bit bizarre.
  25. Oct 17, 2012 #24
    I don't. But it'd be nice to save some lives. We can't, and shouldn't, ban guns. But we can, and should, ban military-grade weapons practically designed for mass murder.
  26. Oct 17, 2012 #25
    I agree, but the impact will be so small it is hardly worth debating. I think Obama had the right idea in that the most important way to decrease violent crime, including those committed with guns, is to address the root causes of criminal behavior in the first place.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook