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

[glenn1]

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.

Well hell yeah if it was one of those Ginsu paring knives - that shit can cut through a beer can then turn right around and slice a tomato like nothing. Countless lives might be lost if we don't ban assault cutlery like this and place limits on high-capacity knife blocks.

 

[Tom]

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".

1. We had an awb and it was never judged to be unconstitutional. There's no question the court has affirmed the right of the federal government to regulate the sale of some arms.

2. The awb's purpose wasn't to effect crime rates, per se. And its impossible to say if it did or didn't since we only live in this universe and can't say what would happen in an alternate universe.

3. In some of the worst cases of mass murder I believe the murderer was at least in part acting out a scenario they experienced in a movie or video game, or even in actual combat or combat training. To that extent the easy availability of certain weapons might fuel the acting out the scenario.

And if they aren't functionally different, it isn't going to hurt anyone's 2nd Amendment rights if they can't get them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Cars to be banned because clearly they cause deaths from drunk driving just like guns cause death from fingers pulling the trigger.

 

[Moonbeam]

Rational explanations are only good for people who can reason. For example, is we were banning nuclear rifles because they kill ten thousand people in a single shot and had a magazine of 100 rounds, the right to bear nuclear arms people would have a fit if you tried to limit their clips or maybe ban their weapons. It is exactly the same thing with assault rifles but folk are brain dead and won't see it.

 

[michal1980]

the brain dead are those that want to ban something.

Why? because banning things is easy, and requires zero thought.

 

[schneiderguy]

1. We had an awb and it was never judged to be unconstitutional. There's no question the court has affirmed the right of the federal government to regulate the sale of some arms.

That was pre Heller vs. DC

2. The awb's purpose wasn't to effect crime rates, per se.

Glad someone finally admitted that. An assault weapons ban is just a power grab by the government.

And if they aren't functionally different, it isn't going to hurt anyone's 2nd Amendment rights if they can't get them.

If they are not functionally different than a "sporting rifle", the government has no compelling interest in regulating them differently than a sporting rifle.

It'd be like the government banning dissenting speech on the Internet but not in the newspaper. They aren't functionally different, so your 1st Amendment right isn't being hurt.

 

[spidey07]

Exactly. The heller decision puts the most popular weapon in "common use".

And the sell for the 94 AWB was indeed reducing crime.

Never mind that "assault weapons" are rarely used to commit crime. very rare.

 

[Dari]

By "using" I mean using it in the way it was meant to be used. A gun is a deadly weapon and I've never enjoyed using it for its intended purpose.

 

[Fenixgoon]

the short version: because an assault weapons ban will do little to curb gun violence, and even less to curb events like these.

the majority of firearm homicides involve handguns (not rifles or shotguns) that have been ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED (either through actual illegal purchase, or legal purchase then illegal transfer)

people who want to hurt others WILL. i repeat, WILL. if not by guns, then by other means. there's a reason knives are heavily regulated in the UK (because all the guns went away and now they have lots of knife violence). additionally, there are any number of commonly available chemicals and materials that can be used to fabricate devices that can harm others

and fwiw, the UK has something like twice the violent crime rate we do, despite having a ban on guns. firearm crime rate is obviously less, but overall violent crime is significantly higher (including, among other things, rape)

 

[spidey07]

By "using" I mean using it in the way it was meant to be used. A gun is a deadly weapon and I've never enjoyed using it for its intended purpose.

It's purpose is to send a lead projectile out its barrel.

What next? You wanna ban nail guns and chain saws?

 

[piasabird]

Ever seen a riot?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Actually, the gun chambers a round from the internal magazine and not the clip. The clip loads (or charges) the magazine but both the M-14 and an AR-15 chambers rounds from a magazine. I am sure you know this but perhaps someone else will understand the difference between clip and magazine a bit better.

The person you replied to was just flat out wrong. Just because you use a clip to load the internal magazine does not make the gun "clip fed" no more than using a stripper clip to load a detachable AR-15 magazine makes it "clip fed".

 

[keird]

This is a really stupid argument. Guns are among the most easily available and efficient tools of mass murder we have. While it is still possible to kill lots of people without them, it is not nearly so easy in most cases. The idea that we are going to suddenly just get rid of all people with murderous intentions is ludicrous, therefore you also try to limit the damage these nuts can do.

To put it another way, if you have two boxes in front of you and a cure for a problem is under one of them, which do you pick? The right answer is BOTH OF THEM.

I'm in the same camp as you. A consensus is almost pointless in American politics.

I'm of the opinion that a lower bar needs to be set to commit someone to an asylum; 30 round mags shouldn't be in the hands of civilians (I think 10 rounds are adequate for an AR-15 at the range); allow volunteer teachers who want to be armed with additional training and incentive pay (zero tolerance and 'gun free zones' are a laughable ideal).

It's called compromise. Also, the sling and bayonette lug prohibitions on rifles are pretty stupid.

 

[Dari]

It's purpose is to send a lead projectile out its barrel.

What next? You wanna ban nail guns and chain saws?

It's difficult to have a constructive, rational argument with you. That's what I wanted in this thread.

 

[spidey07]

It's difficult to have a constructive, rational argument with you. That's what I wanted in this thread.

When you pose a question of "why shouldn't we remove natural rights" then you don't understand that these rights are not "given" to us.

You're entire premise is flawed from the start.

I provided you extremely simple reasons to your question. So far you cannot refute these simple answers. I'm really trying to dumb myself down to your level, but it's getting difficult as you've bottomed out my lower level of intelligence, I can't go any lower to be on your level of ignorance and flat out stupid.

ps - I grabbed another assault rifle today from the gun shop, BOO! And I'll be visiting Walmart daily to pick up some more...yeah, I'm getting my weapons of mass destruction from Walmart. BOO!

Did you know I don't need a background check in my state to purchase a firearm? No NICS check? BOO!

 

[spidey07]

Ever seen a riot?

Engage multiple targets.

 

[Darwin333]

When you pose a question of "why shouldn't we remove natural rights" then you don't understand that these rights are not "given" to us.

You're entire premise is flawed from the start.

I provided you extremely simple reasons to your question. So far you cannot refute these simple answers. I'm really trying to dumb myself down to your level, but it's getting difficult as you've bottomed out my lower level of intelligence, I can't go any lower to be on your level of ignorance and flat out stupid.

ps - I grabbed another assault rifle today from the gun shop, BOO! And I'll be visiting Walmart daily to pick up some more...yeah, I'm getting my weapons of mass destruction from Walmart. BOO!

Did you know I don't need a background check in my state to purchase a firearm? No NICS check? BOO!

What always amazes me is how little of a shit you give about our other "natural rights" that weren't "given" to us either.

I would truly give you credit if you were consistent across the board but you are most definitely not.

 

[Moonbeam]

the brain dead are those that want to ban something.

Why? because banning things is easy, and requires zero thought.

You would have to be brain dead with zero thought to ban assault nuclear rifles. You are so stupid but I told you you wouldn't see it. Idiot.

 

[vshin]

I don't own a gun and probably never will.

But I don't see stricter gun laws changing anything. Ban the AR-15? There are dozens of hunting rifles that fire the same round with the same capability. Ban 30-round clips? So then the gunman will simply carry an extra clip. Close the gun show loophole? The weapons used in Newton, CT were legally purchased from a store. Put armed guards in schools? That didn't work too well in Columbine. Arm everyone? There will be many more accidental shootings in a year than all of the victims in every school massacre in US history... combined.

We're better off taxing guns and bullets and using the funds to provide better mental health care.

 

[glenn1]

Actually, the gun chambers a round from the internal magazine and not the clip. The clip loads (or charges) the magazine but both the M-14 and an AR-15 chambers rounds from a magazine. I am sure you know this but perhaps someone else will understand the difference between clip and magazine a bit better.

The person you replied to was just flat out wrong. Just because you use a clip to load the internal magazine does not make the gun "clip fed" no more than using a stripper clip to load a detachable AR-15 magazine makes it "clip fed".

Actually saying clip-fed is not "flat out wrong" considering that's the terminology used by the U.S. Army itself. Please refer to FM 23-5 page 3

"The U.S. rifle caliber .30, M1, (fig. 1) is an air-cooled, gas-operated, clip-fed, and semiautomatic shoulder weapon. This means that the air cools the barrel ; that the power to cock the rifle and chamber the succeeding round comes from the expanding gas of the round fired previously; that it is loaded by inserting a metal clip (containing a maximum of eight rounds) into the receiver ; and that the rifle fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.

 

[Darwin333]

Actually saying clip-fed is not "flat out wrong" considering that's the terminology used by the U.S. Army itself. Please refer to FM 23-5 page 3

"The U.S. rifle caliber .30, M1, (fig. 1) is an air-cooled, gas-operated, clip-fed, and semiautomatic shoulder weapon. This means that the air cools the barrel ; that the power to cock the rifle and chamber the succeeding round comes from the expanding gas of the round fired previously; that it is loaded by inserting a metal clip (containing a maximum of eight rounds) into the receiver ; and that the rifle fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.

Touche'

While I stand by my original statement, clips do not feed the chamber so therefore they do not "feed" the gun itself and instead simply "feed" the magazine but I will cede the point considering what the US Army is teaching.

 

[glenn1]

We're better off taxing guns and bullets and using the funds to provide better mental health care.

I'm not sure why gun owners need to pick up the costs for this exclusively (or even necessarily the bulk of the costs), but I don't have a problem with this so long as the tax is reasonable and not punitive. The entire premise is rather odd to me however, sorta like putting an extra tax on condoms to finance rehabilitation of rapists.

 

[glenn1]

Touche'

While I stand by my original statement, clips do not feed the chamber so therefore they do not "feed" the gun itself and instead simply "feed" the magazine but I will cede the point considering what the US Army is teaching.

You're probably correct on the technical merits. Fortunately the military in its infinite wisdom decided to go with the lowest common denominator to describe it to us rocket surgeon geniuses who populated the rigorous intellectual fields of combat arms.

 

[Smoove910]

While I do believe the tragedy in CT is a terrible thing, I do not feel it has anything to do with guns and banning them. I believe whole-heartedly this is a mental health care issue, and should be attacked and discussed as such.

I also believe any sort of gun ban will only hurt the honest, law-abiding citizen. If a criminally insane person truly wants to bring harm, a gun law isn't going to stop them from getting what they want.

 

[Darwin333]

You're probably correct on the technical merits. Fortunately the military in its infinite wisdom decided to go with the lowest common denominator to describe it to us rocket surgeon geniuses who populated the rigorous intellectual fields of combat arms.

Very well done.