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

[glenn1]

Yes, clearly the only choice available is between muskets and not. Do you know anything about guns?

This is of course leaving out the fact that I said 'high rate of fire WITH large magazines', which is a statement that requires both features in order to be fulfilled, but who's counting?

What if I used a belt-fed weapon instead? Or how about a clip-fed rifle like the Garand?

 

[fskimospy]

What if I used a belt-fed weapon instead? Or how about a clip-fed rifle like the Garand?

I actually said clips and magazines for precisely that reason. (my favorite rifle was the M-14, a relative of the Garand!)

Regardless, the idea that in order to be in favor of a general principle that you have to be drafting legislation on ATPN is stupid.

 

[Bird222]

Oh look, the dumbass progressive trotted out the "herp a derp, wherez yer tankz!" For starters neither of those are individual weapons, second if there were an invasion/civil war the tank crews would have the tanks.

First I'm no 'dumbass progressive'. Second, you made the argument of having weapons equal to the government you fear. I'm not claiming to have the answer. I actually think it's a complicated problem. However, I don't think I can look at the slaughter of innocent children and think there is nothing to be done here. Maybe that's the mind of a sociopathic conservative (that's for you spidey ).

 

[fskimospy]

Once you decide which scary weapons should be banned, explain what your plan will be for the ones that are already out there. Ditto on the scary hi-cap mags.

Why are you scared of high capacity magazines? They are stupid things for us to be selling, but they aren't scary.

My first thought would be some sort of gun buy back program. You'll never get rid of them all and of course there will always be gun nuts out there who think that the gubmint is coming to kill them if they don't hoard guns and ammo, but the point isn't the complete and total elimination of such things, it is just to limit their availability as much as practically possible.

I thought that much would have been obvious.

 

[Bulk Beef]

I primarily want much stricter access to high rate of fire guns with large clips/magazines.

You sound scared.

I thought that much would have been obvious.

And the money for this buy back? Where will that come from? And what about those who don't go for it? You know, the millions of law-abiding citizens that were just turned into felons with the stroke of a pen. What's your plan for them?

 

[buckshot24]

I would have to research that and get back to you, what sort of answer would you possibly have expected?

A simple set of guidelines would be fine.

 

[fskimospy]

You sound scared.

I thought you sounded scared. I spent years dealing with guns on a daily basis, what's so scary about them? There's just a matter of good public policy and bad public policy. What's funny is that the people on this board who come across as the most terrified are the gun nuts.

And the money for this buy back? Where will that come from? And what about those who don't go for it? You know, the millions of law-abiding citizens that were just turned into felons with the stroke of a pen. What's your plan for them?

It would be a federal program I imagine, since we should be stepping up federal spending anyway in light of continued economic weakness, this is a twofer. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that millions of people would suddenly be turned into felons, but that certainly wasn't what I was going for. This would be bans on sales going forward with a buyback to try and clear out the old stuff that's around.

Frankly, you seem terrified.

 

[spidey07]

Old stuff that's around? You're talking about banning the most popular rifle in the country.

What is "high rate of fire?"

 

[ElFenix]

Interesting that a 50% reduction in casualties is 'very little' to you.

in the grand scheme of things, 10 gun deaths every other year (which is pretty much all a 1993-style AWB is worth) is very little when compared to the overall number of gun deaths.

 

[cwjerome]

I thought you sounded scared. I spent years dealing with guns on a daily basis, what's so scary about them? There's just a matter of good public policy and bad public policy. What's funny is that the people on this board who come across as the most terrified are the gun nuts.

It would be a federal program I imagine, since we should be stepping up federal spending anyway in light of continued economic weakness, this is a twofer. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that millions of people would suddenly be turned into felons, but that certainly wasn't what I was going for. This would be bans on sales going forward with a buyback to try and clear out the old stuff that's around.

Frankly, you seem terrified.

The gun nuts, as you call them, are rightly worried about government overreach, especially when it's a thinly veiled gun grab based on emotion. What you called terrified, I call legitimate concern.

Good public policy, ha. Was the last ineffective AWB good policy? Worked real well. Considering there are probably twice as many AR/AK/similar rifles in circulation today as there was in the early1990s, I'm sure the next ban will be even more successful Yeah, the type of people who buy AR-15s are the type that will sell them back to the government, sure. That's gonna work. This has little to do with good policy and a lot more to do with emotionalism, fear-mongering, and government paternalism.

 

[dmens]

in the grand scheme of things, 10 gun deaths every other year (which is pretty much all a 1993-style AWB is worth) is very little when compared to the overall number of gun deaths.

Another stat: in the 78 years since NFA34 was passed, there has been *one* homicide involving a registered fully automatic weapon. The perpetrator was a cop.

 

[AlienCraft]

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

Another very simple one. 2nd amendment.

There you go.

 

[xj0hnx]

I am willing to bet that I know more about firearms than you do, and have both fired and cared for a wider range of them than you have. So think twice before you start to call people ignorant, just a personal tip from me to you.

Here's a personal tip from me, that's a bet you'd lose. I can say with relative certainty that you haven't.

I don't really give a shit about an assault weapons ban in its old form or a new one. I primarily want much stricter access to high rate of fire guns with large clips/magazines. They serve no useful purpose.

Yes, they do, and no one cares what you want.

 

[AlienCraft]

Serious post:

1. An assault weapons ban is very likely unconstitutional
2. The 94 AWB had zero effect on crime rates
3. "Assault weapons" are functionally identical to other semiautomatic rifles, and differ only in cosmetic features

The fact of the matter is, there is no "rational" reason for wanting an assault weapons ban. All such desires are based completely on emotions and a religious belief that "scary looking guns are bad".

Good Post. Point of Fact: The BUSHMASTER rifle that was used in Conn. is the outgrowth of the 1994 AWB that made AR-15/M-16 manufacture and possesion illegal.
Cosmetics > Function Good Guys > Bad Guys (except in retail, Where GG are kaput)

 

[Bird222]

The gun nuts, as you call them, are rightly worried about government overreach, especially when it's a thinly veiled gun grab based on emotion. What you called terrified, I call legitimate concern.

Good public policy, ha. Was the last ineffective AWB good policy? Worked real well. Considering there are probably twice as many AR/AK/similar rifles in circulation today as there was in the early1990s, I'm sure the next ban will be even more successful

Then the "gun nuts" have nothing to worry about.

 

[AlienCraft]

The gun nuts, as you call them, are rightly worried about government overreach, especially when it's a thinly veiled gun grab based on emotion. What you called terrified, I call legitimate concern.

Good public policy, ha. Was the last ineffective AWB good policy? Worked real well. Considering there are probably twice as many AR/AK/similar rifles in circulation today as there was in the early1990s, I'm sure the next ban will be even more successful Yeah, the type of people who buy AR-15s are the type that will sell them back to the government, sure. That's gonna work. This has little to do with good policy and a lot more to do with emotionalism, fear-mongering, and government paternalism.

When the Governor of New York introduces the spector of "confiscation" into the conversation, I would say 'thinly veiled' is an understatement. D: :'(

 

[AlienCraft]

A gun is not something I takes pleasure or satisfaction in using...

Fixed That For You

 

[cwjerome]

Then the "gun nuts" have nothing to worry about.

Why is that? 2nd amendment rights will be lost, more laws criminalizing law abiding people, more laws that only put people at more risk, and no discernible effect on crime. Sounds a little worrisome.

 

[AlienCraft]

Dancing in the blood of children to contol others.

This is the mind of the liberal.

Sweet Jeezuz... That goes along with "Balancing National Budgets on the Backs of the Poor and Elderly.... That is the Mind of the CONservative." or "Politicizing the deaths of State Department personnel, The mind of a REpublicant" D:

Those sorts of statements just serve to make you into even more of a cartoon in the reader's mind's eye. NO ONE in our society "dances in the blood" of ANYONE! And if you say "nuhunh, your mother does..." I'm going to say "source" and I want to see a freakin "bloody Rave" muthaf.... sorry.... getting worked up. That is the sort of Forum Rhetoric that anyone on here should be beyond making at this point in time... Except for maybe Alymist(sp)he seems to excel in it but I digress.
We all agree The 2nd amendment is there to provide a Pro-Active / Checked Balance to the Power of the Federal Government.
The Syrian Army attacked their citizens because they knew the public was not extensively armed.
Some people think that cannot happen here. Some people think it can.

 

[Gillbot]

https://www.facebook.com/BanTheFordMustang

 

[Smoblikat]

A gun is not something someone takes pleasure or satisfaction in using...

Oh really? I very much like shooting my guns, it brings me pleasure and satisfaction. You are just wrong.

 

[Bulk Beef]

It would be a federal program I imagine, since we should be stepping up federal spending anyway in light of continued economic weakness, this is a twofer. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that millions of people would suddenly be turned into felons, but that certainly wasn't what I was going for. This would be bans on sales going forward with a buyback to try and clear out the old stuff that's around.

I'm asking legitimate questions that relate to the feasibility and efficacy of whatever ban you might propose. Terrified? I would hope that any legislator considering a ban would be asking the same questions, but I think that instead, they, like you, will be content to wring their hands while mumbling something along the lines of "We have to do something". Sort of like what they did when they passed the last ban.

 

[ussfletcher]

A gun is not something someone takes pleasure or satisfaction in using...

Um.. from you:

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

You take it to a range to play with it. Target shooting in particular is a very enjoyable hobby, that many, many people enjoy. Its no fun to have to stop shooting every 10 seconds to refill a 10 round clip, I much prefer filling a 30 round clip and blasting away at the target without stopping.

Lets get this straight though. Punishing everyone for the misdeeds of a few insane people is not justice, it is not being responsible. Everyone is quick to damn the tool that these people employed, that they should have never had access to anyway.

 

[DrPizza]

I think what might be helpful is a useful analogy.

Banning "assault weapons" is like banning paring knives. Those familiar with guns understand why this is a decent enough analogy. Those who don't understand guns, but who think "that would be really stupid. People would still be able to use butcher knives which have the exact same functionality, but are more dangerous." - Exactly the point.

 

[exdeath]

Because I enjoy them and can afford them. That's the only reason I need. Free market.