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.