News Should assault weapons be banned to reduce gang violence?

[Mentalist]

Gangs are a serious cause of violence.

Irrelevant. You missed what I was referring towards.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon (there are assault rifles), shotguns are used for hunting, and pretty much any rifle can be used for hunting (rifles that can't be used for hunting are fine for home defense/protection purposes as not everyone hunts).

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.

AR-15s make excellent hunting rifles and there are numerous hunting-specific AR-15 models available that have a longer barrel, green camouflage, and fire a 7.62 mm round.

And two of the military's sniper rifles, the U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle and the U.S. Marine Corps M40 sniper rifle are both militarized versions of what is a very popular hunting rifle, the Remington 700.

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.

Most gangs kill with handguns, not assault rifles and shotguns. And assault rifles are already illegal unless registered pre-1986.

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

 

[CAC1001]

Irrelevant. You missed what I was referring towards.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

 

[D H]

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.

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

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.

 

[Alfi]

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.

 

[Vorde]

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

I don't think anyone who gets injured cares what type of weapon did it. Shall we ban kitchen knives too?

 

[Angry Citizen]

I don't think anyone who gets injured cares what type of weapon did it. Shall we ban kitchen knives too?

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"?

 

[Mentalist]

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

I'm pretty sure a police chief knows what type of guns gangs are using...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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"?

That's an argument for me to have an AK-47, isnt' it? Here's a massacre with a kitchen knife.
Osaka school massacre.

 

[Angry Citizen]

That's an argument for me to have an AK-47, isnt' it? Here's a massacre with a kitchen knife.
Osaka school massacre.

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

Yeah.

 

[Oltz]

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 without the stimulus we can not know since there was a stimulus.

 

[Mentalist]

Guns make it easier for massacres to occur. Especially if the guns are in the hands of civilian use.

 

[Angry Citizen]

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

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.

 

[Oltz]

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.

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.

 

[Angry Citizen]

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.

No, because I recognize the fact that katanas are not to clubs as assault weapons are to pistols.

Do you have anything more substantial then speculating that people who commit massacres would not if they could not get an assault rifle?

Please quote me where I said that.

 

[Oltz]

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.

So you are not implying that massacres would occur less if we banned Assault rifles?



Then why did you even bring them up?

 

[Angry Citizen]

So you are not implying that massacres would occur less if we banned Assault rifles?

I haven't the foggiest if they would or not. I am implying that fewer people would die in such massacres.

 

[Oltz]

I haven't the foggiest if they would or not. I am implying that fewer people would die in such massacres.

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?

 

[Angry Citizen]

And I am saying there is no way to prove that either way

Yes there is. The military uses M16s for a reason. They kill more people in a smaller period of time than Glocks.

I can make a bomb in an hour at a hardware store

But the vast majority of people cannot. I cannot, and I know more chemistry than the vast majority of human beings on this planet.

 

[Oltz]

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.

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?

 

[Angry Citizen]

You use an M16 over a pistol for its greater accuracy.

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.

Other then massacres do you have an argument?

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

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 http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdfstudy 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.

 

[Angry Citizen]

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.

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.

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.

 

[Oltz]

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.

Actually fully auto M16's went away a long time ago in the military people waste to much ammo.

9MM .45 .5 cal pistols all have more stopping power then most assault rifles and at close range can be aimed and fired faster and are also semi automatic. 3 round burst in my experience is for show you end up shooting 10 feet over your targets head I would not use it in a "shooting spree" scenario anyway.

So yes the funny thing is you have no specific reason to have them off the street and I have no specific reason for them to be on the street.

AK- 47's (7.62 mm) actually are good hunting rifles by the way and I know several people who use AR-15's to hunt deer. Its an accurate reliable small calibre (5.56mm) rifle that can easily be customized to the shooters preferences in sighting and grip configurations and all around great target and hunting weapon for animals that you can kill in 1 well placed shot. I would not use either for bear or moose.

It all boils down to massacres.

 

[Vorde]

It all boils down to massacres.

I think it's silly to argue that you can't kill more people in a crowd with an automatic weapon than something like a pistol or a bolt action rifle. Civilians should not be able to purchase assault rifles.

It seems to me that some legitimate gun enthusiasts will just have to live without assault rifles for the public good.

 

[Oltz]

I think it's silly to argue that you can't kill more people in a crowd with an automatic weapon than something like a pistol or a bolt action rifle. Civilians should not be able to purchase assault rifles.

It seems to me that some legitimate gun enthusiasts will just have to live without assault rifles for the public good.

Except you can convert pistols to be automatic and even some shotguns. Assault rifles do not come factory made automatic either.

You can fire a semi auto as fast as you can pull the trigger. On full auto small arms you are shooting the ceiling by round 4 your hit rate between semi and full is not going to change dramatically unless you get into heavier belt fed weapons that we are not even talking about.

If you fire 30 rounds in 3.5 seconds on full auto (3 10 round bursts) or 12 seconds on semi auto do you really consider that significant?

Keep in mind you have no aim or control of half or more of the auto rounds and could have controlled muscle memory firing of every semi auto round.

Assault rifles are just a flashy name that people get attached to and think they sound more dangerous anyone who says you can kill more people faster with an automatic weapon in a crowd has never fired one. You can fire more shots less accurately and its more likely you "waste" rounds on the floor when you over correct and the ceiling when you loose control as well as the targets you do hit getting hit multiple times.

Now if you talk about actual fully automatic weapons that are designed for sustained fire and are belt fed and heavy enough to reduce significant recoil then you are talking military grade equipment that is not really available to the public.

 

[turbo]

Point of order, if I may. The media throws around the term AK-47 very loosely. Most of the guns they refer to are cheaply-made Chinese-made SKS copies. SKS copies are semi-automatic, and are less potent and less accurate than the old Remington 742 in .30-06. The 742 is a very old design and is a venerable big-game rifle.

It is legal for US citizens to own an AK-47, despite Mitt's "knowledge". Fingerprints, background check, and $200 registration fee per automatic weapon, and you too can own a machine gun.

As for wanting to ban "sniper rifles", the most popular sniper rifle for police use is the Remington Model 700P. That is another great big-game hunting rifle that happens to be a very solid and accurate bolt-action rifle. Banning such a basic old bolt action rifle makes no sense. Gang-bangers don't use them.

 

[mheslep]

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"?

Which presumes the presence of guns. Take the guns away and the knife is again predominate, at least among those restricted by gun laws.

 

[Jack21222]

I think it's silly to argue that you can't kill more people in a crowd with an automatic weapon than something like a pistol or a bolt action rifle. Civilians should not be able to purchase assault rifles.

I don't think anybody in this thread is talking about automatic weapons. Your post leads me to believe you think an assault weapon is automatic. This is false.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

But again, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. A semi-automatic rifle is not going to let you kill any more so than a pistol. For example, Nidal Hasan shot over 40 people (killed 13, wounded 29) using a handgun.

Yes there is. The military uses M16s for a reason. They kill more people in a smaller period of time than Glocks.

No they don't. They just let a soldier fire from a greater distance, being rifles. Most soldiers do not carry automatic-fire M-16s, their M-16s usually have semi-auto and three-round burst fire capability. That's because it was found that with an M-16, once you fire more than three rounds on full-auto, the weapon loses it's accuracy. A standard M-16 magazine is 30 rounds. With ten pulls of the trigger on three-round burst fire, you've emptied the magazine.

It's only in the movies where someone slaps a magazine into the rifle and then has hundreds of bullets to fire. For automatic fire, soldiers use what's called the M249 Bravo Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) which fires the 5.56 mm rounds the M-16 uses, but as a machine gun from a belt. The AR-15s civilians can buy look identical to M-16s, but only have semi-automatic capability.

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.

1) Again no such thing as "assault weapon."

2) AR-15s make for very effective hunting weapons. BTW, the practice of adopting military rifles for hunting purposes goes back to the days of the revolution. Remember, there's nothing special about humans that makes it where a special gun is required to kill a human. Humans, biologically, are animals. A high-functioning animal no less, but still an animal. Any gun that can be used to kill humans can be used to kill animals and vice-versa.

3) Weapons like the AR-15 are fantastic for home defense. It is easier to use and to hit the target than with a pistol or a shotgun.

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.

Remember that a right is a right. It isn't about whether one "needs" something, it's about is it legal. Automatic-fire AK-47s are not legal unless registered pre-1986 and then there's a whole lot of arm-twisting you have to go through to own one.

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.

The term "military-grade" for a weapon just means it is designed to handle the rigors of war. It doesn't mean it's better able to kill than other weapons. There are military grades of ammunition, which are already illegal for civilians to own. AR-15s are again just a semi-auto rifle. They are not designed for "spraying" bullets or anything like that.

 

[CAC1001]

It is legal for US citizens to own an AK-47, despite Mitt's "knowledge". Fingerprints, background check, and $200 registration fee per automatic weapon, and you too can own a machine gun.

Yep, but it will cost you a bundle as it must be registered pre-1986. There's also a multi-month waiting period and there may be additional laws from the state or local governments.

 

[Vorde]

In an earlier post I said automatic weapon, which should have been assault weapon, which isn't really a good word. I apologize for that.

I've live fired Bolt Action rifles, pistols and an AK-47 (though it was a Chinese copy of one). I can say that first of all, I think I'd want the AK in a crowd situation, and second of all, I've been shown how to McGyver a semiautomatic weapon to become an automatic weapon, it's not difficult (In some cases at least).

I think one of perfect examples of why gun control should be tighter is the U.K. Restrictions on all types of guns are tight, but restrictions on pistols and semi-automatic 'assault-type weapons' (what's a better word for your stereotypical AR-15/AK?) are particularly harsh.

In 2005/2006 only .1 homicides by firearm were committed for every 100,000 people in the U.K (not including Northern Ireland I believe).
(http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf)

This is compared to about 2.97 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people in the U.S.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list)
Note: I had a better source for this, I'll update with it if I can find it: but the statistic is good.

I think this is a pretty astounding difference.

 

[edward]

McGyver a semiautomatic or bump fire is the same thing.

Everything changed with the development of the slide stock. The weapon below is actually a semi-automatic AR 15. The trigger finger doesn't move the weapon does, yet it fires like an automatic or a bit slower depending on skilll level.




The slide stock also works on semi-automatic shotguns.

 

[Oltz]

In an earlier post I said automatic weapon, which should have been assault weapon, which isn't really a good word. I apologize for that.

I've live fired Bolt Action rifles, pistols and an AK-47 (though it was a Chinese copy of one). I can say that first of all, I think I'd want the AK in a crowd situation, and second of all, I've been shown how to McGyver a semiautomatic weapon to become an automatic weapon, it's not difficult (In some cases at least).

I think one of perfect examples of why gun control should be tighter is the U.K. Restrictions on all types of guns are tight, but restrictions on pistols and semi-automatic 'assault-type weapons' (what's a better word for your stereotypical AR-15/AK?) are particularly harsh.

In 2005/2006 only .1 homicides by firearm were committed for every 100,000 people in the U.K (not including Northern Ireland I believe).
(http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf)

This is compared to about 2.97 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people in the U.S.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list)
Note: I had a better source for this, I'll update with it if I can find it: but the statistic is good.

I think this is a pretty astounding difference.

So your best comparison is to a country where the police do not even carry guns and the population 20% of the US population living in the equivalent of Oregon?

I think there was a thread a week or 2 ago from a UK perspective about gun rights read it and perhaps the misstep of this comparison will become clear.

As far as I know no other "western" nation has the proportion of gun ownership and number of guns as the US the only comparison nations would be third world and middle eastern nations.

 

[Oltz]

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Apparently the correlation between murder rate and Gun ownership is negative.

 

[Skrew]

So when bad things happen ones first action as policy maker should be to restrict the freedoms of responsible people?

We should solve the problem with gangs by banning firearms and not actually dealing with the gangs?

And in general, why do you focus on firearms instead of the multitude of other ways to prevent deaths and prevent criminal behavior?

 

[Vorde]

So when bad things happen ones first action as policy maker should be to restrict the freedoms of responsible people?

We should solve the problem with gangs by banning firearms and not actually dealing with the gangs?

And in general, why do you focus on firearms instead of the multitude of other ways to prevent deaths and prevent criminal behavior?

To me the Second Amendment question is a question about how far do individual's freedoms get to extend. I think everyone will agree that making guns considerably harder to get (as in England) will absolutely reduce crime and homicides. Whether this would lower those rates by a percent large enough to make a major difference or not is an open question (or at least to me).
But the way I see it, I'd gladly reduce the freedoms of a few hundred thousand individuals by a small amount if it means less innocent people die every year.

In situations like organized crime, taking guns off the street won't do anything because most of the time the individuals are getting their weapons illegally to being with, so this has to be dealt with at a more fundamental level.

In situations like the Aurora massacre or the shooting at Virginia Tech a couple years back, I think it's really hard to deny the fact the reducing the availability of guns will lower the number of these occurrences.

 

[Skrew]

To me the Second Amendment question is a question about how far do individual's freedoms get to extend. I think everyone will agree that making guns considerably harder to get (as in England) will absolutely reduce crime and homicides. Whether this would lower those rates by a percent large enough to make a major difference or not is an open question (or at least to me).
But the way I see it, I'd gladly reduce the freedoms of a few hundred thousand individuals by a small amount if it means less innocent people die every year.

In situations like organized crime, taking guns off the street won't do anything because most of the time the individuals are getting their weapons illegally to being with, so this has to be dealt with at a more fundamental level.

In situations like the Aurora massacre or the shooting at Virginia Tech a couple years back, I think it's really hard to deny the fact the reducing the availability of guns will lower the number of these occurrences.

So you dislike guns and support restricting access to them because they don't have value to you. You support banning "assault weapons" while not showing any data they are used often in murders(I suspect the vast majority of murders involve pistols). Firearms in the US will always be relatively easy to get, even if you banned the sale of new firearms there are vast quantities in circulation.

I always get this feeling that the people who are pro gun bans are more interested in the fact that a firearm is used in a murder instead of the murder itself. Firearm deaths are considered unacceptable but deaths from other causes are OK. For example you never hear people wanting to ban alcohol because of drunk drivers.

With freedom comes ones acceptance that people will abuse it, that people will make bad decisions and sometimes people will die. The US was founded with an understanding of this fact and it is against the spirit of the constitution to impose the restrictions you want. There are many things I would restrict if safety was my top priority but guns would not be one of them.

Also CDC article on gun control laws stating it's unknown if further restrictions would have any impact.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

[edward]

McGyver a semiautomatic or bump fire is the same thing.

Everything changed with the development of the slide stock. The weapon below is actually a semi-automatic AR 15. The trigger finger doesn't move the weapon does, yet it fires like an automatic or a bit slower depending on skill level.




The slide stock also works on semi-automatic shotguns.

To save a little time I will quote myself along with the links.

As I see it we are headed for a problem with the shear magnitude and diversity of weapons available. Some can be seen in the links above.

The weapons industry is going a bit the same way as the electronics industry. We have more and more gadgets which in reality have nothing to do with self defence. The military doesn't use slide stocks or flame throwing shotgun shells so are they really a second amendment item?

Some of these weapons are extremely dangerous yet can be purchased over the counter. By looking at a number of videos on YouTube IMO they appear to be used primarily for entertainment.

There is no challenge to using them. For me a challenge was hunting squirrel with a single shot rifle not a flame throwing shotgun.

There are incendiary rounds and rounds that explode on impact. Fun? probably, but we also have a country full of heavily armed fruit cake militias all with a different idea of what they think they might accomplish on their faux patriotic missions. These are the people we don't see on YouTube and there is nothing well regulated about them.

 

[Vorde]

Firearm deaths are considered unacceptable but deaths from other causes are OK. For example you never hear people wanting to ban alcohol because of drunk drivers.

No.

Alcohol has been banned from cars, public areas (like parks) and streets (at least where I am) because of the danger it causes. Alcohol is legal in certain places (bars, homes) because it is managed there.

Alcohol has many purposes, but all of them involve taking advantage of it's intoxicating effect. Alcohols which cause damage above and beyond what they are required for are usually made illegal (I'm thinking of absinthe, blindness-inducing wood alcohol).

There are some areas, like in gun clubs or hunting ranges, where the possession of certain guns (like hunting rifles or shotguns) make perfect sense and should be completely legal. Likewise, in home defense scenarios, certain guns should be allowed to be kept around the home (though I'd advocate for the ownership of non-lethal weapons like tasers instead - but that is tangential).

However, the risk and worry involved in introducing guns to public places is high enough that they should be banned from being carried around (at least in loaded capacity). Likewise, guns whose ability goes beyond the home defense/hunting situations that they are meant for should not be at all legal, as they are simply introducing additional risk that have no real purpose (like slide-stocks).

 

[CAC1001]

In an earlier post I said automatic weapon, which should have been assault weapon, which isn't really a good word. I apologize for that.

I've live fired Bolt Action rifles, pistols and an AK-47 (though it was a Chinese copy of one). I can say that first of all, I think I'd want the AK in a crowd situation, and second of all, I've been shown how to McGyver a semiautomatic weapon to become an automatic weapon, it's not difficult (In some cases at least).

I think one of perfect examples of why gun control should be tighter is the U.K. Restrictions on all types of guns are tight, but restrictions on pistols and semi-automatic 'assault-type weapons' (what's a better word for your stereotypical AR-15/AK?) are particularly harsh.

In 2005/2006 only .1 homicides by firearm were committed for every 100,000 people in the U.K (not including Northern Ireland I believe).
(http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf)

This is compared to about 2.97 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people in the U.S.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list)
Note: I had a better source for this, I'll update with it if I can find it: but the statistic is good.

I think this is a pretty astounding difference.

Yes, but it isn't cut-and-dried. Gun homicides are lower in the UK than the U.S., but crime overall is higher in the UK than the US:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_***_vic-crime-assault-victims
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

It has also been found that the UK Home Office under-reports gun incidents that the police deal with: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

 

[Skrew]

No.

Alcohol has been banned from cars, public areas (like parks) and streets (at least where I am) because of the danger it causes. Alcohol is legal in certain places (bars, homes) because it is managed there.

Alcohol has many purposes, but all of them involve taking advantage of it's intoxicating effect. Alcohols which cause damage above and beyond what they are required for are usually made illegal (I'm thinking of absinthe, blindness-inducing wood alcohol).

There are some areas, like in gun clubs or hunting ranges, where the possession of certain guns (like hunting rifles or shotguns) make perfect sense and should be completely legal. Likewise, in home defense scenarios, certain guns should be allowed to be kept around the home (though I'd advocate for the ownership of non-lethal weapons like tasers instead - but that is tangential).

However, the risk and worry involved in introducing guns to public places is high enough that they should be banned from being carried around (at least in loaded capacity). Likewise, guns whose ability goes beyond the home defense/hunting situations that they are meant for should not be at all legal, as they are simply introducing additional risk that have no real purpose (like slide-stocks).

Alcohol is banned from cars, yet people keep driving drunk and killing other people. Clearly the restrictions are insufficient yet you aren't in support of further alcohol regulation(which should be far further regulated since it allows people to make extremely poor decisions). You aren't in support of it because as I wrote before, deaths involving alcohol are acceptable to you.

Concealed Carry permits are growing at an incredible rate and guess what - nothing has happened beyond giving those who want to legally protect themselves the ability to do so. If I was going to use my guns in an illegal fashion I wouldn't bother getting a concealed carry permit beforehand nor would I need to in order to carry my guns illegally.

My AR's are for my own wellbeing, that is their purpose. It's not up to you to decide what guns I get to use or how they are applied.

Also I LOLd at the taser comment.

 

[Vorde]

Alcohol is banned from cars, yet people keep driving drunk and killing other people. Clearly the restrictions are insufficient yet you aren't in support of further alcohol regulation(which should be far further regulated since it allows people to make extremely poor decisions). You aren't in support of it because as I wrote before, deaths involving alcohol are acceptable to you. (Seriously?)

Concealed Carry permits are growing at an incredible rate and guess what - nothing has happened beyond giving those who want to legally protect themselves the ability to do so. If I was going to use my guns in an illegal fashion I wouldn't bother getting a concealed carry permit beforehand] nor would I need to in order to carry my guns illegally.
(I think concealed carry is a bit of a different issue, so I won't respond)

My AR's are for my own wellbeing, that is their purpose. It's not up to you to decide what guns I get to use or how they are applied.

Also I LOLd at the taser comment. (I did too as I was typing it, I still agree with my idea, but let's forget about it for now as it sounds quite silly)

The massacre at Virginia Tech was committed with two weapons that were bought legally.

Cho was able to purchase guns and ammunition
from two registered gun dealers with no
problem, despite his mental history.
Cho was able to kill 31 people including himself
at Norris Hall in about 10 minutes with the
semiautomatic handguns at his disposal. Having
the ammunition in large capacity magazines
facilitated his killing spree.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/10%20CHAPTER%20VI%20GUN%20PURCHASE%20AND%20CAMPUS%20GUN%20POLICIES.pdf

The shooting in Aurora earlier this year was done with all weapons he had purchased and were carrying legally, and in fact up until he fired his first shot, he was in the realm of the law.

“All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally,” Oates said at the Friday evening press conference. “And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally.”

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/

I have no doubt that you and thousands like you own guns for purely good reasons. But to me you're saying "it's okay if one in a million goes on a murderous rampage as long as the other 999,999 get to have guns safely".
And I think that is wrong.

 

[Oltz]

Vorde just to be clear the shootings you are referencing were not "Assault Rifle" style weapons so you are talking about banning all guns now or are you using bad examples?

I just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

I still want to know if you think the lack of ability to get guns would cause these people to simply use a different means to "go on a killing rampage" i.e. pipe bombs thrown into a movie theater from the exit door or parking a rented van full of explosives on a college campus.

 

[Oltz]

Tasers have a maximum duration they can keep a person down and then they are essentially back to full capacity instantly. In addition they in general only have 1 shot and it is easy to miss or what if there are 2 people breaking into your home?

They are not as effective as in the movies again I have been hit by several different style devices and I would not trust it as my primary defense.

In law enforcement they typically want to have 2 officers with tasers ready for each target they plan to subdue in addition they can always pull the firearm if they miss and if they do not miss can cuff the target while he is stunned.

 

[CAC1001]

I have no doubt that you and thousands like you own guns for purely good reasons. But to me you're saying "it's okay if one in a million goes on a murderous rampage as long as the other 999,999 get to have guns safely".
And I think that is wrong.

The problem is that to stop the one in a million who goes on a rampage from using legally-acquired guns, you would essentially have to strip the other 999,999 of their guns which would make them vulnerable to criminals.

 

[Vorde]

The problem is that to stop the one in a million who goes on a rampage from using legally-acquired guns, you would essentially have to strip the other 999,999 of their guns which would make them vulnerable to criminals.

You are absolutely right, which is why eliminating the underlying causes of criminality is just as important.

 

[Jasongreat]

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either an assault weapon IS effective at killing or it isn't. Why would it work on the populace and not a deer? Second, who follows the laws of society? Criminals or the rest of us? Do you think gangs won't have guns just because they are illegal? And thirdly, there are lot more deadly rounds than the ar-15, or in military garb, the m-16, I think the lack of killing power is the biggest complaint among troops. As far as your concern about three round bursts and fully automatic, those are already illegal, without the proper permits.


Edit: sorry this was a reply to angrycitizen a couple of pages back.