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

[Bird222]

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

Who is seriously talking about eliminating all gun deaths?

 

[fskimospy]

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

You are arguing that we shouldn't do something to prevent some gun deaths of children because that action wouldn't prevent all gun deaths of children.

That is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

 

[Matt1970]

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.

The "limiting damage" is a minimal at best and the last assault weapons ban did little in that regards but everyone acted as if the problem solved.

 

[Matt1970]

You are arguing that we shouldn't do something to prevent some gun deaths of children because that action wouldn't prevent all gun deaths of children.

That is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

When did I say we shouldn't do anything? We just need to stop passing laws that do very little and then brush the problem under the rug.

 

[fskimospy]

When did I say we shouldn't do anything? We just need to stop passing laws that do very little and then brush the problem under the rug.

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

 

[spidey07]

Not sure if your answer is serious...

Why not? You asked and I gave you two very obvious and simple answers.

You look to others for your safety. I look to myself, and that right cannot be infringed. A rifle with many bullets is one of the best defensive weapons there is.

 

[fskimospy]

Why not? You asked and I gave you two very obvious and simple answers.

You look to others for your safety. I look to myself, and that right cannot be infringed. A rifle with many bullets is one of the best defensive weapons there is.

If only you would look to others for mental health counseling.

 

[Matt1970]

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

Ya know, if I wanted to keep up the one-up game with you I would just say "Interesting that 10 kids killed in a school is problem solved to you" but do you really thing that? NO. The fact that you have someone willing to act out against a classroom full of kids is the problem. Take away his guns and he will just find another way to commit mass murder.

 

[fskimospy]

Ya know, if I wanted to keep up the one-up game with you I would just say "Interesting that 10 kids killed in a school is problem solved to you" but do you really thing that? NO. The fact that you have someone willing to act out against a classroom full of kids is the problem. Take away his guns and he will just find another way to commit mass murder.

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.

 

[spidey07]

Except overwhelmingly mass shootings don't use "assault weapons". By a huge margin.

It's simply not a problem. And has already been proven a ban has zero impact. The only impact is restricting defense.

 

[Texashiker]

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

Place the blame where it belongs, on the mentally ill people who have access to the weapons.

No sane, logical person shoots another person.

What we need, is a system to keep mentally ill people off the streets.

 

[cKGunslinger]

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

According to Walking Dead, you really just need a possum-eating redneck with a crossbow, SOPHI[ti]A! :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

Place the blame where it belongs, on the mentally ill people who have access to the weapons.

No sane, logical person shoots another person.

What we need, is a system to keep mentally ill people off the streets.

There are plenty of sane, logical people who shoot other people.

Furthermore we do not have and never will have a system that gets all mentally ill people off the streets. With that in mind, isn't it a practical matter to attempt to limit the damage they can do?

 

[Tom]

Since none of the gun rights advocates want to answer..no there's no reason not to ban assault weapons.

Will banning them have an effect ? Here are two ways it might.

1. psycology. if these guns are no different than other guns, why does anyone care if they are banned ? because they are different in their appeal. And what is that appeal ? looking like military weapons, which btw, have one function, killing people.

This appealing to a desire to emulate the military, or police, or drug gangs, by having badass looking weapons, or guns with reps like Glock, may give a self-fulfilling sense of power in the hands of a potential murderer.

2. actual functional differences. I know little about guns so I'll leave that to someone else. Although I assume things like caliber, velocity, rate of fire, stuff like that might vary with some of these weapons although I don't know to what extent they are more lethal.

So anyway I think there's potential for reducing the number of murderers who are living some sort of fantasy by using quasi-military gear and weapons, or gang related items and weapons, possibly emulating what they experience in games and films, and then going on a rampage where they aren't killing zombies, they are killing real people and children.

 

[Texashiker]

Furthermore we do not have and never will have a system that gets all mentally ill people off the streets.

Then the system needs to be fixed.

The guns are not the problem, the people who are mentally ill are the problem.

When we start addressing the root cause of the problem, nobody wants to talk about it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Proof?

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

You are 100% wrong. The requirements to own a machine gun, or any other Class III weapon are pretty much the same as to own any other firearm, over 21, no felony convictions, no domestic violence, yadda, yadda, yadda, the difference is that they are controlled by the Treasury, you have to pay a $200 tax, and go through a more extensive background check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

It is a common misconception[13] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:
All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.

 

[fskimospy]

Then the system needs to be fixed.

The guns are not the problem, the people who are mentally ill are the problem.

When we start addressing the root cause of the problem, nobody wants to talk about it.

The system will NEVER account for them all. NEVER EVER EVER NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.

These crimes have two components, intent and ability. The insanity provides the intent, the guns provide the ability. There is no other as easily accessible method for mass murder. It is frankly bizarre to me that anyone is even trying to make that argument. Would he have been able to kill as many people with a baseball bat? Of course not.

Guns are part of the problem. Period.

 

[Texashiker]

You are 100% wrong.

Ok, I was wrong about having to be a class III dealer.

But, assault weapons are still restricted, which answers the OPs question.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Then the system needs to be fixed.

The guns are not the problem, the people who are mentally ill are the problem.

When we start addressing the root cause of the problem, nobody wants to talk about it.

Yeah, we need a system that automatically allows the government to monitor the current mental condition of every citizen at all times, then quickly launch a strike to grab you and deal with you appropriately. D:

I'm pretty pro-second amendment, but your suggestions are a lot more scary than anything the "gun-grabbers" are proposing.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, we need a system that automatically allows the government to monitor the current mental condition of every citizen at all times, then quickly launch a strike to grab you and deal with you appropriately. D:

I'm pretty pro-second amendment, but your suggestions are a lot more scary than anything the "gun-grabbers" are proposing.

It will all be fixed when the Minority Report technology gets perfected.

 

[xj0hnx]

This is a really stupid argument.

No, it's not. Not only is getting rid of guns NOT going to stop mass murders, or any other kind of murder, it is going to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Calling it a "stupid argument" is just another way to avoid putting the blame where it belongs because it is a harder issue to tackle, and doesn't suit the progressive agenda.

So the answer to the OP is A) Because it will not solve the problem, and B) it will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

A) It will not solve the problem. So, even if you include civilian, semi-automatic weapons in your description of "assault weapon", they are very rarely used in these, or other crimes, so they are not the problem to begin with, even if guns are.

B) Infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. We have a natural right to defend ourselves, this isn't given to us by government, or the constitution, it is a right of a living being, to defend their life. That being said the 2nd Amendment was written to insure that we have the means to keep ourselves free. In order for that to happen, we have to have equivalent weaponry to those that would try to take that freedom.

 

[Bird222]

The "limiting damage" is a minimal at best and the last assault weapons ban did little in that regards but everyone acted as if the problem solved.

I'm sure any one of those parents would love to have their child back. Fewer deaths is always better.

 

[Bird222]

B) Infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. We have a natural right to defend ourselves, this isn't given to us by government, or the constitution, it is a right of a living being, to defend their life. That being said the 2nd Amendment was written to insure that we have the means to keep ourselves free. In order for that to happen, we have to have equivalent weaponry to those that would try to take that freedom.

So where is your tank and nuclear missile located?

 

[spidey07]

I'm sure any one of those parents would love to have their child back. Fewer deaths is always better.

Dancing in the blood of children to contol others.

This is the mind of the liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's not. Not only is getting rid of guns NOT going to stop mass murders, or any other kind of murder, it is going to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Calling it a "stupid argument" is just another way to avoid putting the blame where it belongs because it is a harder issue to tackle, and doesn't suit the progressive agenda.

So the answer to the OP is A) Because it will not solve the problem, and B) it will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

A) It will not solve the problem. So, even if you include civilian, semi-automatic weapons in your description of "assault weapon", they are very rarely used in these, or other crimes, so they are not the problem to begin with, even if guns are.

B) Infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. We have a natural right to defend ourselves, this isn't given to us by government, or the constitution, it is a right of a living being, to defend their life. That being said the 2nd Amendment was written to insure that we have the means to keep ourselves free. In order for that to happen, we have to have equivalent weaponry to those that would try to take that freedom.

What's funny is that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but that doesn't fit your ultra right agenda so you have to pretend I'm not.

Nowhere in your 'right to defend your life' is there an unfettered access to all kinds of weaponry that you might want. This is such a bullshit argument. As someone who firmly supports people's right to arm and defend themselves, it's hilariously obvious that the US has had FAR too lenient gun laws for a very long time now. The idea that restricting some of the more dangerous forms of weaponry would be an assault on freedom is a fever dream fantasy that I have no time for.