Banning assault rifles: Good or bad for the U.S. citizen?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
74 Answers
Well…..duh!
NOBODY, regular citizen needs a freaking assault rifle next to their bed.
I am rather anti-gun, they have their place, but their place is not in the hands of foolish, paranoid and aggressive people and they are, obviously, the weapon of choice for the emotionally unstable.
I’d like to approach this as a gun owner, but not a gun nut. Although I can’t speak for everyone, most if not all people do not need an “assault weapon”. However, there are two issues with banning assault weapons:
1. Gun control would have needed to happen around 100 years ago to honestly be effective. There’s so much available that even if they were banned everywhere, anyone who really wanted one could obtain one illegally. Most weapons used in crazed shooting sprees are obtained illegally anyway.
2. The term “assault weapon” is kind of a loose term. It doesn’t just refer to fully automatic weaponry, it can be almost anything that isn’t single action, or any accessories that makes the weapon easier to fire. By banning a blanket term as “assault weapon”, you could ban a gatling gun, sure, but you could also ban the browning rifle handed down from grandad.
Therefore, banning might not be the solution because it would only inconvenience the collector, not the psychopath. What really needs to happen is better gun tracking. A lot of states only require background checks and registration if you’re buying from a dealer, but buying from an individual just needs a handshake. Same thing with custom parts, you can build your own gun without registration.
With better gun tracking between individuals, it would help prevent the flow of weapons illegally being traded if people went after those who were doing the illegal dealing in the first place.
Gun control is absolutely pointless. I can make a a firebomb out of styrofoam, isopropal alcohol, and a few other houdehold items that will kill or maim more people than a gun if I place it right.
Define “Assault Rifle”.
Note that not all legal definitions include only things like the M-16 and AK-47. Many non-assault rifles are legally considered Assault Rifles as well. That is why Barrett won’t sell to CA, not even to law enforcement, many of their weapons fall into that category despite lacking normal AR features like large clips, selective fire, or otehrwise being anything like an actual AR.
@Coloma That goes double for you. When you think “Assault Rifle”, what do you think of? Probably something more like what the military uses than any firearm used by law-abiding civilians that CA would consider falling under that definition.
@RocketSquid If guns are ever banned, machinists like me will make a lot of money!
People argue that they want the right to buy guys as means of defense for their homes and families. If that’s the case, then there should be only a very very small selection of guns to choose from. I shouldnt be able to go buy an assault rifle, a sniper rifle, or be able to build my own custom kiling machine. There should be two options for the average civilian: A simple hand gun, or a simple rifle. Either of those will protect me just fine.
For that matter, why cant everyone just keep a taser gun or rubber bullets in their house. Why do we have to kill anyone.
Or if you want to buy multiple weapons over time…you should have to go through some kind of testing or investigation and prove your reasoning, etc.
Just some thoughts.
yes i agree with you. but does that mean we should build weapons FOR people that are designed TO kill people, and then just give them to anyone who wants one without any thought? I understand that anyone can build weapons if they want, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that providing it as a service is smart.
I know that if someones crazy enough and wants to kill people, they will find a way and make it happen. But, we shouldn’t make it easier for them.
I dont understand peoples arguments FOR gun rights. what do they want them for. You shouldnt need one other than protection and hunting.
last thought – when the founding fathers included laws about guns in the constitution, the world was a very very different place. Im sure their hopes were that the people in charge after them would be smart enough to make the necessary amendments as society changed.
And im not really one of the people who loves to argue this kinda stuff, i actually kinda hate it haha i really just wrote this for people reactions and thoughts about it, not to “preach” it. thats all, later.
I agree with ^ @JSpeer
Hell, I live on property in the mountains and have rattlesnakes, cougars, coyotes and all sorts of other marauding wildlife around.
I have only had to shoot one Bobcat and kill 2 snakes in over 20 years for preying on my other animals. I prefer the wildlife of the hills to the wildlife of the city and I have less reason to shoot anything out here.
My point IS, that even for those of us that live in rural areas the need for having a gun around is minimal IMO.
Heck, I’m just saying that it wouldn’t help the situation. Most guns that are used in crime are either stolen or black market anyway, so what’s the point?
Why not just limit everything to 6 shots. That’s enough for just about any likely defense situation short of zombie apocalypse.
You want to spray those 6 shots in half a second, OK, have fun. You can reload now.
Yes, yes I know, you could make a larger clip out of an old potato chip bag and a couple paper clips, with instructions on the internet. I’m proud of you. Now your killing toy is illegal and you can’t claim you just have it for kicks and defense.
Re: “what’s the point of making them illegal now, there’s so many?” – Well, in 10 years we can have even more legal guns that can kill people even faster and more effectively, or we can have a dwindling supply of illegal guns that are quickly becoming no longer state of the art. When does the solution start?
You say only for hunting and protection? Fine. I’ll argue that the compact size of an M4 combined with a collapse-able butt stock makes it an ideal weapon for the sake of protection whereas a typical hunting rifle or shotgun could easily be very unwieldy within the tight confines of a home. Sure you could argue then why don’t you get a handgun? Frankly, I don’t like them and in my experience a rifle has always been more trustworthy. Also consider this, the M4 is a relatively short range weapon system meaning when hunting at times you’ll have to move in closer to your prey and do so undetected. Some people may argue that it’s automatic and thus unfair. Those idiots can go do a little research to find that *gasp! the typical M4 can’t fire automatically, it can only go to burst which is the release of three rounds in quick succession after pulling the trigger. But of course, some of those idiots will still say that a three round burst is still unfair to the animal. Those of us who have handled military weapon systems will laugh, automatic and bursts are really for suppression and spray and pray isn’t all that effective at killing jack minus ambushing a large number of tightly clustered individuals. Also a three round burst is really only likely to have one bullet hitting the target, the first as the following are most likely going to fly high due to recoil. It’s a waste of ammunition. So someone who chooses to hunt with an M4 would most likely stick with semi auto.
I’d like to add that I have found assault rifles to generally be more comfortable than your average hunting rifle and shotgun by a longshot.
plus you would need a class three permit to get one with three round burst.
My opinion on this, and most things, is that more restrictions do not necessarily make us safer. Criminals don’t obey laws. The people that I don’t want owning weapons, or doing drugs, or whatever are exactly the people who don’t give a shit if it’s legal. Making things illegal often seems to make them more dangerous, because we can make laws until we’re blue in the face, but the black market will always exist.
The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars on defense, tighter gun laws means more guns in the hands of the government and criminals, and fewer in the hands of the average American. I don’t feel comfortable with that. I would never be alright with an all out ban on firearms, and I can see the concerns behind wanting more restrictions, but I am wary to step over that line, personally.
@JSpeer So… all cars should be the same too? If you don’t understand why there are different gun models then that implies that you also support monopolies, and feel that everybody should be just like you, including the same likes, dislikes, physique/stature, etcetera.
And tasers don’t work on very well; inaccurate, short-ranged, and sometimes ineffective. Try tasing a PCP addict or someone wearing a thick jacket.
@King_Pariah
I understand what you’re saying, and you clearly know way more about guns themselves than I do lol. But now you’re just talking about preference, because you have so many options. If you weren’t able to buy all those types of guns, your preference would be whatever type of gun you were allowed to legally own. It may be less comfortable or whatever, but you’d figure out a way to use it wouldnt you?
I think maybe the main issue here is that we’ve made guns into a luxury, where you can have any kind you like, and as many as you like. you can collect them, build them, sell them, play with them, modify them, etc. When maybe guns, or anything of that destructive nature, should be taken more seriously.
I see where you’re coming from though. Im a city guy so I’m never around guns much. But i think theyre awesome and I’d probably love to build them and collect them and fire all different kinds. But the sad truth is that they’re built for killing, and crazy killers have taken advantage of freedoms. So at what point do we start saying…ok maybe guns are a bigger deal then a luxury
@jerv
No, your statement about cars is irrelevant. Cars aren’t being purchased to kill people. They’re a tool for travel, and because changing a car from red to yellow, or hardtop to convertible doesn’t make any difference, because cars aren’t a problem in our society.
Hammers are legal. Yes, sometimes people kill other people with hammers, but not frequently enough to make hammer laws. But what if companies start building hammers with bayonets attached. and then with two heads instead of one, or hammers that extend to 5 feet. Now it’s a nice efficient weapon, and it becomes a problem. Then we say, hey!...Maybe companies shouldn’t be allowed to make a wide variety of deadly hammers since theyve become such an issue. They should only be allowed to make one kind…that hammers nails into a wall.
Its obvious what im saying…guns are a problem in society. We dont need thousands of models that allow people to shoot 70 people at a movie theater in a minute. Put on the news, almost every story involves a gun. That’s when you should start rethinking things.
and dont pick on my analogy…its making a point i know it’s not flawless. lol
its the principle.
did you know that more people are killed in a year by knives than by guns? Why aren’t we banning knives? They are obviosly the bigger threat.
@Mr_Paradox – I believe you’re quoting numbers from the UK, where citizens don’t have guns.
Here’s some figures for the US
Source
Firearm subtotals – 86,112 – 66% of total
All other weapons subtotals – 43,629 – 34%
And from another view
A handy chart
and from the world view
Gun crime statistics by US state: latest data
How bad is gun crime in the US? The latest data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports is out and it provides a fascinating picture of the use of firearms in crimes across America.
About 10,000 people die each year from firearms, about twice as much as all other weapons combined.
Maybe we should take a look at regulating guns after all?
@JSpeer How so? Is it that you don’t want just one model of pistol and one model of rifle, you want a gun ban?
I guess you’ve never held something that felt like it was sized/shaped for someone whose hands were a different sized from yours. Every chair you’ve sat in was the perfect height, every computer had the perfect specs, every house the perfect layout, and there has never been anything in your life that hasn’t been an absolute perfect fit. If you’ve ever painted anything, or preferred one brand of anything over another brand for any reason whatsoever, you invalidate your own point.
You just don’t understand. Anything that is sold has many variants that differ from each other. Cars, hammers, guns, food… everything. Do not let your anti-gun prejudice make you forget how the commercial world works. If you knew anything about commerce at all, you would know why there are so many different guns. And if you knew anything about government and the law, you would know why not all of them are legal for civilians.
Should we ban the sale of 100-round drums to civilians? Yes, because any legitimate shooter, even someone defending themselves against multiple attackers, either has enough skill to handle the situation in twenty rounds or less, or is inept enough that they should not be trusted with a gun at all. Do our laws need work? Yes. But if handguns are legal, I want a choice between Beretta and Glock, revolvers and automatics, 6” or 8” barrel; I want a free market where anything legal can be sold in variants that match a wide range of tastes from enough different suppliers to keep things competitive.
@funkdaddy How does that compare to cars? Between DUIs, texters, and idiots in addition to actual vehicular homicide and genuine accidents, I think cars need regulation more than guns do. And notice how we also have more issues there than in places like most of Western Europe where things are more regulated?
@funkdaddy yea everything you just listed abour cars is illegal. and a lot of people…such as me, dont do them because theyre illegal
@jerv
No no, maybe I wasnt as clear as I thought. I agree with your last paragraph. I dont mean literally only one type of handgun and one type of rifle. I dont have any problem with a variety of guns, BUT I think we should have a very very limited choice. I simply mean, like you said, why sell a 100 round drum to civilians? Why sell an automatic assault rifle to civilians? I meant that variations on weapons should be limited to some extent. I shouldn’t ever be allowed to buy a bazooka, because thats not a tool for common use. If the reason guns are legal are for protection and hunting, make guns that are designed to do that at the most. I dont need military grade weapons to defend my house.
atleast not yet lol
I think the government needs to be a lot more “careful” with guns than they have been. They should be treated like the very dangerous and misused tool that they are.
@funkdaddy Those are inner city figures. Not at all representitive of the nation. Plus, you got that from a rabid anti-gun group. So take with a grain of salt.I know I do with the stuff from the NRA.
@jerv – it looks to be about a third of the number of people killed in auto accidents.
I’m sure you understand the difference between comparing a tool to a weapon. A tool has other uses, and when used effectively and as intended is safe. A weapon is built with only one purpose and when used effectively and as intended, it kills.
Yet cars are highly regulated, offer many other uses, and are owned and used by a majority of the population every day. There are 250 millions cars in the US, many of which are used every single day. Cars traveled close to 3 trillion miles in a year, most of those killed no one.
I don’t want to argue, so let’s just agree to regulate guns in the same manner we do cars. Register them and have them inspected every year, require training for everyone who wants to own one, have the industry pay for extensive testing and any weapon deemed unsafe will be recalled at the manufacturers expense.
@Mr_Paradox – you didn’t read anything. Those are national statistics from the FBI, and reported by several sources including The Guardian which I quoted because it’s published in the UK where knives kill more people than guns and they break the figures down by state.
I checked the source. They didnt. Just because this comes from the FBI doesnt mean that it is about the eentire nation. It said in the source that this info came from cities of at least ”....one million people.”
@JSpeer It may be a miscommunication.
As it stands, full-auto and burst-fire weapons are practically illegal, and converting a semi-auto is highly illegal. Good luck getting a silencer legally. Clip sizes used to be limited, though 10 rounds was silly; few guns held more than 18 anyways, but I think that the original intent of that law was to prohibit clips so large that they had no practical civilian uses, like 100-round drums.
@funkdaddy I believe that anything dangerous needs regulation. I also feel computers are dangerous. Look how many kids get stalked by pedophiles, or how many people lend their iPad to their kid and wind up with hundreds of dollars worth of in-app purchases. Not the same as physical injury or death, but seriously dangerous nonetheless.
People should be required to prove proficiency before being allowed to use anything that can shot them in the foot, literally or metaphorically.
@jerv
Yup i agree with you there. I dont want to argue either. Honestly I’m probably never even gonna own a gun in my life, all of my questions/opinions were more just my initial thoughts whenever I hear people arguing about guns, and I wanted to see how people would respond to them.
And ok cool, i didnt know that there were already those types of restriction on guns. good to know. Sorry i hope i didnt seem too dogmatic or pushy on topics, I meant it more as an educational discussion rather than a debate haha
@Mr_Paradox – I looked again and you don’t seem to be right. I’m not sure if you’re just trolling me or not at this point.
Here is the source of the numbers used
FBI Uniform Crime Reports
About the sources of their information -
produced from data provided by nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States.
and
In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population.
I haven’t seen a source cited from you at all, but I looked at the NRA site (both the 100% Flash site and the other) and couldn’t find any statistics there either. Perhaps you have some? I’d like to take a look.
@JSpeer Fair enough. Too bad we don’t have more people looking for educational discussions these days :/
FYI, I personally don’t own any firearms, unless you count Nerf guns. I feel that firearms should only be owned by people who have a use for them, whether it be home/self defense, competition, hunting, or just some relaxing backyard target practice. Since I have no use for one, I have no desire for one.
maybe all guns should be replaced by Nerf guns. A couple shots to the face, gets some anger out, nobody gets hurt, and everyone has a good laugh. No more murders.
haha
I really don’t understand the need to have a gun for “protection” at all anyway. If you keep one at home, locked up, unloaded, are you really going to take time to get it out, load it, and aim at people? All of this in the state of mind you’d undoubtedly be in at the time? I must be missing something. Would someone please explain what I don’t understand>
I agree 100% with @DigitalBlue. I’ll just add that I would love a ban on assault weapons, but that still doesn’t mean criminals couldn’t get their hands on them.
I’ve hunted since I was eleven or twelve. I’ve never needed a huge magazine. Why would I need 30 rounds.
@GracieT I live in a rural area with a lot of wildlife. Occassionally we get a rabid animal. I’ve had to do that. I didn’t enjoy it. When I hunted, it was for food. We had enough growing up to get by, but if we wanted something else, we hunted or fished for it. That’s just how it was.
@Adirondackwannabe, true. I can see how you would do that. But did you keep it unloaded and locked up? If you needed it to hunt with, would you keep it ready to go at the spur of the moment, always out, like it was on a table next to your bed? Wouldn’t you have taken care of it, and made sure that everyone would treat it with respect?
@GracieT I kept my guns disassembled, always wiped down to prevent rust, in a gun case or the original shipping container, in a closet, way away from me so I would never do anything with them without a lot of thought.
@Adirondackwannabe, that’s my point. People that have a familiarity with guns and use them often RESPECT them. They are not kept available to use where anyone can reach them, at any time, for any reason. I honestly am confused by the people requesting that everyone be able to keep guns with them, in many cases hidden and ready to fire.
Okay. I see. I never have had a loaded gun in the house. And I always assume any gun I touch is loaded. I don’t hunt now. My s/o is such an animal lover, I prefer my nads where they are.
I live in a nice neighborhood that is bordered on two sides by some not so pleasant neighborhoods in which there are people who own automatic weapons and like to remind this part of town regularly that they do. After a series of drive-by murder of which one was near our home, my father bought a M&P 40 for home protection. He keeps it locked up in a small box with a full magazine next to his bed and keeps the key always on him. That way if someone ever does decide to break into the house, it’s a simple pop open the case, slide a chamber into the round, and voila. Fortunately we haven’t had to use it but someone has been trying to steal my Dad’s truck recently so our luck might not hold out.
I challenge someone to provide a single example of a law-abiding citizen using an AR-15 or a similarly military-style assault rifle in a constructive way.
By “constructive” I am speaking quite broadly. You know… like, stopping a crime, protecting your family, shooting down enemy helicopters, hunting chupacabras. I’ll take any example you can dig up. Can’t wait.
@Qingu Two AR-15 owners I know use them to protect livestock on their farms.
However, there are a few key differences between an AR-15 and an actual Assault Rifle like the M-16, most notably in the receiver. While some parts are interchangeable between the two, the ones that make the M-16 an assault rifle are not, and are also illegal to possess.
@Qingu I know three guys who use AR-15 variants who use them for hunting and one of the three also uses his to kill coyotes that threaten his livestock.
Those who want to ban these so called assault weapons really want to eliminate all guns but IF they can get their foot in the door with this kind they feel they will be cooking with gas finally and fulfill their Utopian agenda.
If anyone here by chance know any Korean businessmen in LA during the R.K. riots where the rioting was in full swing…ask them about their AK-47’s they had while perched on the roofs of their stores while others’ were burnt to the ground. Those Koreans don’t fuck around when they work hard and they won’t be having any of that mess. End result… the crazy mob left them alone. Argue with those results.
I don’t know about the guys on roof tops but according to this report, Koreans suffered substantial losses.
@rooeytoo Substantial losses beats total losses. It may be argued that their losses may have been less had more of them been armed.
So, in summary…
Assault rifles should be available to protect ourselves in case of a once in a generation riot. And that’s why people have them?
Come on guys. Whether you’re on the roof of your store shooting an AK-47 or a pellet gun with a bad attitude, people are going to go on to the next store with no angry man spraying them with pellets.
I don’t want a gunless society or even a ban on rifles. I just think we need to make it harder for people who have decided to kill or injure as many people as they can to get military grade weapons to do so. There’s very few justifiable reasons to have them.
I don’t know why there’s a special place in so many people’s hearts for guns that they no longer consider them weapons, but that seems to be the case. If this discussion was about flamethrowers or grenades would there be the same level of objection?
Both might come in handy if you’re ever caught defending your store in a riot.
@jerv – you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one!
@funkdaddy Even I draw the line at an AK-47, but a civilian version that lacks (and cannot be converted to) full-auto or burst-fire and has a reasonable clip size (15 rounds) is acceptable to me. Once you get into 30+ round magazines, that is excessive, and there really is no need for more than one round per trigger pull, at least not for civilian use.
And I would not call coy-dogs going after livestock “once in a lifetime”.
@rooeytoo Which group suffered severe losses, and which group suffered lesser losses? The armed ones had less rebuilding to do.
@jerv – why would scaring away or killing coyotes require anything that could ever be considered an assault rifle?
That’s my point as much as anything. Those weapons keep popping up where a lot of people are shot or dead, and there’s nothing unique about them other than their ability to cause a lot of damage quickly.
So who’s in the market for those weapons?
It’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. No one can even go to a college to get a degree that would give them the all mighty powers to be able to dictate what another person needs. Show me one school….anyone? Whenever the anti hi- cap mag argument runs out of good usable steam, it will inevitably do an about face and bring in duck hunting, or any other kind of animal hunting. That is called being dishonest. 2A isn’t about sports.
@funkdaddy _” So, in summary…
Assault rifles should be available to protect ourselves in case of a once in a generation riot. And that’s why people have them”
Once in a lifetime huh?
How many lifetimes do you get… to see if being unprepared works?
Two days ago a man broke into my parents home at night with a pistol and tried to rob them. My father got out his AR-15 to try to subdue the robber. The robber then tried to shoot my father who then shot the robber multiple times causing the robber to drop the gun and flee. If my father hadn’t had that AR he would likely be dead as well as my mother and sister. Then I would have to arrange the funerals for all of my family at age 23. So, still want to ban those rifles?
@Mr_Paradox It’s incredible he had to even open fire with that weapon. Just goes to show ya that when criminals are motivated, fear has no effect on them. Excellent gun control right there.
As my father says “Good gun control is hitting your target.” (He’s a former U.S. Marine.)
@funkdaddy ” why would scaring away or killing coyotes require anything that could ever be considered an assault rifle?”
Mu.
If you cannot figure out why I feel that is the only answer I can give, or even what that actually means in context, then there is no possible answer that I could give that would both satisfy you and be even remotely accurate or truthful.
Something called a pack of wolves at 10 yrds. You’re going to need at least a semi-auto for THAT. Most likely an AR-15.
@Mr_Paradox 10 yards? That is handgun range. Across a field (~100 yards) is more appropriate for most predatory animals; if they are within 10 yards, there are other problems. However, you are correct that semi-auto is best.
Semi auto’s are just more intuitive to operate. The ammunition is light enough to barely produce offensive recoil and the shooter can just concentrate on hitting their intended target. There’s a good reason why hardly anyone chooses an automobile with a manual shift transmission these days.
yeah like “damn I need to change my pistol mag because I ran out of rounds.” At that point you got about two secs to chang you mag.
You generally end up using what you have handy and the most proficient with.
@woodcutter I am aware that sometimes you have no choice. I just found that odd. Then again, most people I know that go out with a longarm also have a pistol on them, partly for that reason, and are proficient in both.
.223 is doable at shorter ranges because of the caliber. Now a .308 size bullet like old school AK’s will knock the shit out of most hardened cover and in doing so ,cause over penetration at close ranges but to the chagrin of the older Soviet operators, they too have switched over to the 5.54mm that has similar ballistics of the GI .223.(or 5.56, whatever conversion you like).
@Mr_Paradox You father “shot him multiple times….” with an AR14….and the guy was still able to run away? Did they catch him when he went to the ER??
Don’t know. The cops waven’t caught him yet. We are assuming he died in the woods or something of blood loss.
Of all the creatures ever made [man] is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one… that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain.” ~Mark Twain
Give him an assualt rifle and he can do it even better!
He died in the woods of blood loss. K.
@rooeytoo Considering that an assault rifle can only injure/kill a small number of people while a political agenda can make millions wish they were dead (or actually make them dead!), I say that assault rifles are a FAR smaller threat than people.
Note how many people have been killed by fire though, including burning at the stake. I hope you don’t have a gas stove or a fireplace, because that would make you a hypocrite.
@rooeytoo give a man fetilizer and he can do it even better than with an assault rifle! As well as make it harder to catch him.
How about this guy. He is a big man with his gun!!! Too many like him for my taste.
@rooeytoo There are far worse people that have never touched a gun in their lives. Far too many of them for my tastes.
If you want to take away guns because a small but visible minority misuse them then you are justifying an utter, complete, and total ban on Christianity and Islam as well. You have that guy who does/did things that many responsible gun owners consider evil and the law considers illegal. I have WBC, and every person who has ever tortured or beaten a homosexual, woman, or “heretic” to death because of a Jesus/Allah head trip.
And if you think being shot is bad, try being dragged down the road my a rope tied to your ankle until your body disintegrates. It has happened, and it proves that people will do what they will do regardless. Ban rope, motor vehicles, and asphalt too.
I know you have to have the last word @jerv so I am not saying anything else, I have said my piece and you have diligently refuted (at least in your own mind) everything I said. So now you can reply to this one and you win!!!
Answer this question 
