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

[OverVolt]

The way it feels as a gun owner is like this:

There was a terrible accident where a car was speeding with 300 HP and flew off the road and killed alot of people because the driver was mentally ill and just decided to floor it.

People want to ban cars with more than 100HP. To prevent it from happening again.

A Toyota Yaris can merge on the highway just fine, no one needs more than 100 HP.

People talk about if you need 100hp or if 150hp is fine. Some even say 80hp should be the maximum because they are scared of cars. Some say this would be dangerous to try and merge on the highway and cause more deaths that way in smaller accidents because cars with more than 80 hp would still be on the highway.

But the 80 HP crowd is very adamant that if someone mentally ill were to floor it, then it would have caused alot less damage. Never mind the fact that they probably would have just stolen one of the faster cars if they planned to floor it into something.

And of course at the end of the day its just a bunch of bullshit because you have 215HP and don't speed off the road anyway. And just enjoy having a fast car.

 

[Agent11]

What they try to classify as an assault weapon isn't any different than any semi automatic rifle except for cosmetics.

Thusly anyone who knows anything thinks its a stupid idea and a slippery slope toward a semiauto ban.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The only true way to lower gun violence is to simply remove pretty much all guns from the general public, save those that go through extraordinary measures to prove they are law abiding and responsible. This is where we are ultimately headed.

It's funny how conservatives are too dumb to see this.

 

[Agent11]

You don't have to be a conservative to believe in the second amendment, the Dem's would do well to remember that.

Careful Icarus.

 

[Retro Rob]

The weakest argument repeated in threads like this:

"No amount of regulations/bans will stop gun violence", regardless how many have to die, I want my rights protected no matter what!!!", So do NOTHING about it?

Other equivalents:

* We can't stop completely stop drunk driving, so lets not bother to enforce drunk driving laws.

*We can't prevent all cybertheft, so let's not bother to improve network security protocols

*We can't curtail crime in general, so don't bother to increase police presence.

*We can't stop the threat of nuclear war completely, so let's not bother with international security.

*I can't always stop my kids from getting into trouble, so let kids be kids, and don't bother with disipline/punishment.

*We can't completely stop people from speeding, so let's not bother wasting valuable police time enforcing traffic laws.

Failiing to prepare is preparing to fail, keep it up America!

10,000+ deaths a year isn't enough to pull these people's head out of their rear ends. Let's shoot for 50,000+ then maybe.., just maybe we can take a glance at the 2nd Amendment....

 

[shortylickens]

The weakest argument repeated in threads like this:

"No amount of regulations/bans will stop gun violence", regardless how many have to die, I want my rights protected no matter what!!!", So do NOTHING about it?

Other equivalents:

* We can't stop completely stop drunk driving, so lets not bother to enforce drunk driving laws.

*We can't prevent all cybertheft, so let's not bother to improve network security protocols

*We can't curtail crime in general, so don't bother to increase police presence.

*We can't stop the threat of nuclear war completely, so let's not bother with international security.

*I can't always stop my kids from getting into trouble, so let kids be kids, and don't bother with disipline/punishment.

*We can't completely stop people from speeding, so let's not bother wasting valuable police time enforcing traffic laws.

Failiing to prepare is preparing to fail, keep it up America!

10,000+ deaths a year isn't enough to pull these people's head out of their rear ends. Let's shoot for 50,000+ then maybe.., just maybe we can take a glance at the 2nd Amendment....

Umm, nobody with a brain ever made those arguments.

Those are deliberately arguments made by liberals so they have something easy to fight against.

 

[Matt1970]

The only true way to lower gun violence is to simply remove pretty much all guns from the general public, save those that go through extraordinary measures to prove they are law abiding and responsible. This is where we are ultimately headed.

It's funny how conservatives are too dumb to see this.

The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country. That does not take into account illegally owned firearms.

Democrats and Republicans know it is impossible to get all those off the streets and out of the hands of civilians. Only a moron would think otherwise.

 

[shortylickens]

The only true way to lower gun violence is to simply remove pretty much all guns from the general public, save those that go through extraordinary measures to prove they are law abiding and responsible. This is where we are ultimately headed.

It's funny how conservatives are too dumb to see this.

We like to have evidence for theories.
And your theory has already been blasted by the 94-04 ban. All those you made illegal?
They were everywhere. All over the country.


Methinks your definition of dumb is "anybody who doesnt agree with a liberal".

 

[Dari]

Umm, nobody with a brain ever made those arguments.

Those are deliberately arguments made by liberals so they have something easy to fight against.

Some people that like things the way they are right now (or would prefer even less regulation) have said similar things. I think it's best if you stick to your smartphone threads.

 

[corwin]

OP stated the question wrong...what RATIONAL reason exists for an AWB? It would have almost zero effect on crime, even if it were possible to get rid of every single "assault weapon" in the US this very second the sick people who do these heinous acts would use something else. It's like putting a band-aid on a severed limb, useless.

Look, if you want to repeal the 2nd amendment then just go ahead and say it and go for it, that I could admire and would applaud you for, but trying to nibble away a little at a time is just cowardly. Come right out and try for what you want instead of just being annoying little shits about it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The weakest argument repeated in threads like this:

"No amount of regulations/bans will stop gun violence", regardless how many have to die, I want my rights protected no matter what!!!", So do NOTHING about it?

Other equivalents:

* We can't stop completely stop drunk driving, so lets not bother to enforce drunk driving laws.

*We can't prevent all cybertheft, so let's not bother to improve network security protocols

*We can't curtail crime in general, so don't bother to increase police presence.

*We can't stop the threat of nuclear war completely, so let's not bother with international security.

*I can't always stop my kids from getting into trouble, so let kids be kids, and don't bother with disipline/punishment.

*We can't completely stop people from speeding, so let's not bother wasting valuable police time enforcing traffic laws.

Failiing to prepare is preparing to fail, keep it up America!

10,000+ deaths a year isn't enough to pull these people's head out of their rear ends. Let's shoot for 50,000+ then maybe.., just maybe we can take a glance at the 2nd Amendment....

The difference between most of those examples and gun control is that 1) cybertheft, nuclear war, "crime in general", etc are harmful more-or-less by definition and 2) the solutions you suggest don't prevent others from tangentially related legitimate acts.

*We can reduce drunk driving by installing breathalyzers in every vehicle, therefore we should

*We can prevent cybertheft by giving the FBI more leeway in reading people's emails, therefore we should

*I can stop my kids from getting into trouble by forcing them indoors, therefore I should

etc

 

[corwin]

The weakest argument repeated in threads like this:

"No amount of regulations/bans will stop gun violence", regardless how many have to die, I want my rights protected no matter what!!!", So do NOTHING about it?

Other equivalents:

* We can't stop completely stop drunk driving, so lets not bother to enforce drunk driving laws.

*We can't prevent all cybertheft, so let's not bother to improve network security protocols

*We can't curtail crime in general, so don't bother to increase police presence.

*We can't stop the threat of nuclear war completely, so let's not bother with international security.

*I can't always stop my kids from getting into trouble, so let kids be kids, and don't bother with disipline/punishment.

*We can't completely stop people from speeding, so let's not bother wasting valuable police time enforcing traffic laws.

Failiing to prepare is preparing to fail, keep it up America!

10,000+ deaths a year isn't enough to pull these people's head out of their rear ends. Let's shoot for 50,000+ then maybe.., just maybe we can take a glance at the 2nd Amendment....

Have you ever looked at historical firearm deaths? Did you know that they started declining just before that first AWB was put in place and have continued to fall since it expired? Have you also noticed in that same time that almost every state has allowed it's citizens to carry concealed weapons, you know except places like Chicago and DC where crime has not gone down at all? Ever think that maybe the decision to allow the 2nd amendment to do what it was intended to do might have something to do with that decline or lack thereof where it is being denied?

 

[pauldun170]

I vaguely recall that years ago the driving force behind the assault weapons ban was that Police departments lobbied for it because they felt they were outgunned on the street.
Since every department now seems to be fully stocked with military grade weapons fielded by veterans (There are e-penis contests going across the country with swat teams\special units) this no longer seems to be a valid argument.

I personally believe (when it comes to guns)
1. Home defense is best done by a shotgun.
2. Personal defense outside the home best done by whatever handgun fits comfortably in the hands of the owner.
3. Hunting rifles don't need to be semi auto. They need someone who knows how to shoot.
4. Restricting classes of weapons does not do anything besides create brownie points between politicians and constituents.

As for weapons classified as "Assault Weapons"
I have yet to hear of a valid reason TO ban them based on the classifications I've found.
Do I think fully automatic weapons should be restricted? Yes
Do I think all firearms should be registered and owners licensed? Yes
Do I think someone should have to give up a family heirloom because some law says only cops and people who are really good friends with the local sheriff should be able to have certain handguns? No

 

[Fenixgoon]

The weakest argument repeated in threads like this:

"No amount of regulations/bans will stop gun violence", regardless how many have to die, I want my rights protected no matter what!!!", So do NOTHING about it?

Other equivalents:

* We can't stop completely stop drunk driving, so lets not bother to enforce drunk driving laws.

*We can't prevent all cybertheft, so let's not bother to improve network security protocols

*We can't curtail crime in general, so don't bother to increase police presence.

*We can't stop the threat of nuclear war completely, so let's not bother with international security.

*I can't always stop my kids from getting into trouble, so let kids be kids, and don't bother with disipline/punishment.

*We can't completely stop people from speeding, so let's not bother wasting valuable police time enforcing traffic laws.

Failiing to prepare is preparing to fail, keep it up America!

10,000+ deaths a year isn't enough to pull these people's head out of their rear ends. Let's shoot for 50,000+ then maybe.., just maybe we can take a glance at the 2nd Amendment....

better ban cars, carcinogens, and fatty foods first. they are all way ahead of firearm homicides.

 

[umbrella39]

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

Another very simple one. 2nd amendment.

 

[WackyDan]

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

You're talking to the op who states..

"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."

That should tell you all you need to know about his knowledge of firearms and why he shouldn't have the one he currently owns.

 

[Tom]

If there's no advantage to using an assault weapon, why do mass murderers use them ?

Why does anyone buy them ?

What difference does it make if they're regulated to a greater degree ?

 

[spidey07]

Mass shooters by a wide margin don't use "assault weapons". There has only ever been a few occurances.

It makes a big difference because "assault weapons" are some of the best self defense weapons there are. You want criminals better armed than their victims. The whole concept is silly and based on emotion.

 

[fskimospy]

Mass shooters by a wide margin don't use "assault weapons". There has only ever been a few occurances.

It makes a big difference because "assault weapons" are some of the best self defense weapons there are. You want criminals better armed than their victims. The whole concept is silly and based on emotion.

The guy so blinded by rage that he loses thousands of dollars betting like an idiot on elections he doesn't understand wants to tell us what things are based on emotion.

 

[Tom]

Mass shooters by a wide margin don't use "assault weapons". There has only ever been a few occurances.

It makes a big difference because "assault weapons" are some of the best self defense weapons there are. You want criminals better armed than their victims. The whole concept is silly and based on emotion.

So which is it ?

Assault weapons are the same then they wouldn't be better for anything.

If they're better for self-defense they're very likely better for mass murder.

 

[spidey07]

So which is it ?

Assault weapons are the same then they wouldn't be better for anything.

If they're better for self-defense they're very likely better for mass murder.

So let's make murder illegal?

 

[spidey07]

The guy so blinded by rage that he loses thousands of dollars betting like an idiot on elections he doesn't understand wants to tell us what things are based on emotion.

You cannot refute or argue my bulllet proof logic and facts, so you resort to insults.

That's how I know you are defeated.

 

[piasabird]

I would like to draw your attention to othe incidents like the LA Riots and the people that riot these G4 and world conference events. Large cities like New York City are prone to the possibility of somekind of riot or flash violence and also gang activity. Then there is the threat of a massive blackout. This alone is good enough for a need for an assault weapon as a weapon of last resort. You may think it will never happen, but you never know. Besides what about all those people who live in high crime areas that might need an assault weapon? What about the farmers in the country who have all kinds of threats? What about shop owners who might need to defend their shop from whatever, or whoever? Also the fact that a ban on assault weapons, whatever that is, does not disarm criminals; it only makes civilians vulnerable to attack from criminals.

 

[piasabird]

You could look at it from another point of view. So lets say the left wingers get the assault weapons ban. What if this is an incremental problem and that is just the first step. Next they will say there is no reason for you to own a handgun with a clip. Next thing you know you and everyone else has a total ban on all guns. This is the type of thing that is likely to happen.

Just take the guns away from the cops first.

Chicago has a handgun ban and it does not stop the killings. In fact to get a handgun license in IL you have to submit a photo and a set of fingerprints for a background check. So owning a handgun is not really even a right in Illinois. Illinois is already virtually a police state.

 

[Veliko]

You could look at it from another point of view. So lets say the left wingers get the assault weapons ban. What if this is an incremental problem and that is just the first step. Next they will say there is no reason for you to own a handgun with a clip. Next thing you know you and everyone else has a total ban on all guns. This is the type of thing that is likely to happen.

Ooooh, the slippery slope argument!

No-one's ever tried that tactic before, well done.