Can someone explain rationally why we should not have an assault weapons ban?

[Dari]

I was given a gun by my father a couple of years ago. If I did not have security clearance and worked in the military at the time, I don't think I would have gotten my NYC gun permit. But it's a Desert Eagle and I mainly take it to the range to play with since it would be very loud in my New York apartment and serve as a powerful distraction. I could get another gun but no one is going to break into my doorman, high security building.

With that out of the way, I'm trying to get my head around why any civilian would need an assault weapon. 2nd Amendment? I doubt that would stop a tyrranical government. Because criminals can get it? Well, they can easily get it because it's legal. Make it illegal and no one will be able to get hold of one so easily. Also, criminals can access a lot of other illegal items but that doesn't mean we should legalize them and even the playing field.

So, seriously, what logic is there to keep it around other than as a plaything at the range?

 

[Matt1970]

Except you are missing the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal and they are all over the place. Sure we can ban high capacity magazines and the wepaons like the AR-15, but do you really think that will stop these incidents from happening?

By your own logic why do you need a Desert Eagle for poking holes in a piece of paper? A BB gun could do that.

 

[Dari]

Except you are missing the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal and they are all over the place. Sure we can ban high capacity magazines and the wepaons like the AR-15, but do you really think that will stop these incidents from happening?

By your own logic why do you need a Desert Eagle for poking holes in a piece of paper? A BB gun could do that.

You're right, I don't need it. It was given to me as a present. It isn't a really good handgun for home defense either.

With regards to assault weapons, you still have not answered my question. Or are you implying that there is not a rational reason to have these weapons?

If there isn't a rational reason to have assault weapons and if it's causing more harm than good then it's clear that it should be banned. Right?

 

[Incorruptible]

You're right, I don't need it. It was given to me as a present. It isn't a really good handgun for home defense either.

With regards to assault weapons, you still have not answered my question. Or are you implying that there is not a rational reason to have these weapons?

Do you even know what an assault weapon is? Because most people calling for bans have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[cwjerome]

I was given a gun by my father a couple of years ago. If I did not have security clearance and worked in the military at the time, I don't think I would have gotten my NYC gun permit. But it's a Desert Eagle and I mainly take it to the range to play with since it would be very loud in my New York apartment and serve as a powerful distraction. I could get another gun but no one is going to break into my doorman, high security building.

With that out of the way, I'm trying to get my head around why any civilian would need an assault weapon. 2nd Amendment? I doubt that would stop a tyrranical government. Because criminals can get it? Well, they can easily get it because it's legal. Make it illegal and no one will be able to get hold of one so easily. Also, criminals can access a lot of other illegal items but that doesn't mean we should legalize them and even the playing field.

So, seriously, what logic is there to keep it around other than as a plaything at the range?

First, you're framing the question wrong. It's not a question of need.

Second, you are using your own narrow, individual context and applying it to everyone. Most people don't live in a NYC high rise.

 

[Dari]

Do you even know what an assault weapon is? Because most people calling for bans have no idea what they are talking about.

Are you going to answer the question in the title?

 

[Incorruptible]

Are you going to answer the question in the title?

Only when you answer my question

 

[Texashiker]

With that out of the way, I'm trying to get my head around why any civilian would need an assault weapon.

First of all, it is not legal for civilians to own an assault weapon.

Assault rifles have been regulated since 1934. To own one you have to jump through legal loops, pay a special tax,,, and so on. Unless you have a special permit, you can not go down and buy an assault rifle.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Private ownership of machine guns is legal in 38 states. What's illegal is the manufacture of new machine guns for other than LE or military use.

 

[Texashiker]

Private ownership of machine guns is legal in 38 states.

Proof?

To own an assault rifle, one must be a class III dealer, which is through the ATF.

 

[Matt1970]

You're right, I don't need it. It was given to me as a present. It isn't a really good handgun for home defense either.

With regards to assault weapons, you still have not answered my question. Or are you implying that there is not a rational reason to have these weapons?

If there isn't a rational reason to have assault weapons and if it's causing more harm than good then it's clear that it should be banned. Right?

You are missing the point. That rational reason for having one is irrelevant. Banning them will only make someone pick a different weapon. Do you think someone is going to second guess committing mass murder due to magazine capacity? Are we really that much safer when someone walks into a school with 10 round magazines vs. 30? It only takes a couple seconds to reload a gun. Is that enough time for someone to come in the room and disarm him because I doubt a bunch of 6 year olds are going to overtake a grown man and disarm him?

 

[Bulk Beef]

Proof?

To own an assault rifle, one must be a class III dealer, which is through the ATF.

You are wrong.

 

[Texashiker]

You are wrong.

Prove me wrong.

To be defined as an assault rifle, the weapon must be either selective fire, or full auto.

To own a weapon that is either selective fire or full auto, one must have a class III license.

 

[Dari]

You are missing the point. That rational reason for having one is irrelevant. Banning them will only make someone pick a different weapon. Do you think someone is going to second guess committing mass murder due to magazine capacity? Are we really that much safer when someone walks into a school with 10 round magazines vs. 30? It only takes a couple seconds to reload a gun. Is that enough time for someone to come in the room and disarm him because I doubt a bunch of 6 year olds are going to overtake a grown man and disarm him?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that just because they can choose something with less ammo there is no reason to take a higher capacity magazine away? Why not? The lower the kill rate, the better. Your argument seems to be that since some people are going to die there is no reason to change anything. Is that correct?

 

[Sonikku]

Liberals slam assault rifles now, but we'll see who's laughing once the zombie apocalypse happens.

 

[Bird222]

You are missing the point. That rational reason for having one is irrelevant. Banning them will only make someone pick a different weapon.

Like the man in China cutting 22 kids (none died btw)? I am not anti-gun but just like other areas of society we have to weigh the pros and cons. I know crazy people are still going to kill people but the idea is to limit the damage. There are alot of areas that need to be weighed to see how we can limit the damage including magazine capacities. Maybe you can provide some links to mass killings with explosives or derailing trains or something else that will make us think that limiting magazines capacities won't make any difference in the number of violent deaths in this country.

 

[spidey07]

Simple reason. To engage multiple targets quickly in self defense.

Another very simple one. 2nd amendment.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that just because they can choose something with less ammo there is no reason to take a higher capacity magazine away? Why not? The lower the kill rate, the better. Your argument seems to be that since some people are going to die there is no reason to change anything. Is that correct?

The lower kill rate is still a mass killing. It is not fixing the problem. If the news story broke that 10 kids were killed in a school, is everyone going to breathe a sigh of relief that it could have been worse?

 

[fskimospy]

The lower kill rate is still a mass killing. It is not fixing the problem. If the news story broke that 10 kids were killed in a school, is everyone going to breathe a sigh of relief that it could have been worse?

Wait, so your argument is that 10 dead kids is no different than 20 because in both cases people would be sad and outraged?

 

[JEDIYoda]

key word -- rationally...........

 

[shortylickens]

Because it doesnt reduce crime.

 

[Dari]

Simple reason. To engage multiple targets quickly in self defense.

Another very simple one. 2nd amendment.

Not sure if your answer is serious...

 

[Bulk Beef]

Prove me wrong.

To be defined as an assault rifle, the weapon must be either selective fire, or full auto.

To own a weapon that is either selective fire or full auto, one must have a class III license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

You actually outlined the process in a previous post. You're just under the common misconception that this process is not open to individual purchasers, which it is in most states.

Yes, you have to jump through legal paperwork hoops.
Yes, you have to pay a $200 transfer tax.
Yes, sometimes local law enforcement refuses to sign off on the transfer.
Yes, machine guns are exorbitantly expensive (because supply is limited to what is currently available).

But the fact is that private ownership of machine guns is legal in most states, including yours.

 

[Texashiker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

You actually outlined the process in a previous post. You're just under the common misconception that this process is not open to individual purchasers, which it is in most states.

Yes, you have to jump through legal paperwork hoops.
Yes, you have to pay a $200 transfer tax.
Yes, sometimes local law enforcement refuses to sign off on the transfer.
Yes, machine guns are exorbitantly expensive (because supply is limited to what is currently available).

But the fact is that private ownership of machine guns is legal in most states, including yours.

So we have answered the OPs question, assault weapons are already restricted.

 

[Matt1970]

Wait, so your argument is that 10 dead kids is no different than 20 because in both cases people would be sad and outraged?

No, I am saying 10 dead kids is still 10 dead kids. You haven't solved the problem.