• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Should Assault Rifles used by Armies/ Terrorists be restricted in the USA?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should Assault Rifles used by armies and terrorists be restricted?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Restricted to young people under a certain age


Results are only viewable after voting.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
To be clear I'm not saying it would have NO effect, it's just that accidental shootings aren't what drive gun violence so I think the overall help would be small. Generally the people who are shot are those that the shooter intends to.
We had been talking about home safety, or so I thought. Learning proper use including trigger discipline, safety around children etc. I also suggested liberal intervention policies. Someone suicidal or exhibiting behaviors which would trigger a professional's concern allowing police to get involved and remove handguns. Domestic violence and more. Is it proof? Nothing is. But then this is the nature of compromise.

These are the concerns expressed outside of willful murder. On the other hand you can look at London and their assessment of severe crime including homicide. They have the situation you ask for, the end of legal gun ownership.

Yet that situation is not improving while in NYC one can obtain a gun outside of city limits easily. As an inner-city kid, I can tell you that guns were and aren't the #1 concern just walking down the street. None of my scars are due to guns nor the deaths of acquaintances except for one instance. I do carry weapons, often, when I take my camera equipment out. No guns, none needed. I'm not going to harm anyone but I have no effective means of retreat against someone in better health, but can defend myself or hide. I don't do fear well. But there are those who believe that my right of self-defense isn't valid in our Emperor State as I like to call it. My daughter can't even have pepper spray. Fortunately, she's equipped by me to defend herself. She has training in the use of non-firearm weapons rather than be a potential victim of rape, unless of course one thinks she should just give in to the rapist. Of course she could walk into Youtube and kill at least as many as the shooter so now what?

I believe in a balance of rights, not absolutes, no lack of accountability. That's how our nation has function and old farts like me tend to like that.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,697
2,217
136
We've already had an assault weapon ban. It didn't do anything and was dropped.

Fern
Really? I don't remember mass shootings in volume during that like we do now. Could be that you're living under a rock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Really? I don't remember mass shootings in volume during that like we do now. Could be that you're living under a rock.

We don't have mass shootings in volume. It's just that it's hyped up in the news now.

Check the stats for yourself. Check the studies of the (in)effectiveness of the assault weapon ban for yourself.

Fern
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,697
2,217
136
We don't have mass shootings in volume. It's just that it's hyped up in the news now.

Check the stats for yourself. Check the studies of the (in)effectiveness of the assault weapon ban for yourself.

Fern
So mass shootings are fake news?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

oldkingclue

Junior Member
Mar 9, 2018
2
2
41
I don't think any weapon should be banned just tighten the ways of getting them and great punishment for misusing them

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,617
519
126
Yes, I imagine my position isn't shared by that many people but I do believe if people knew more about the damage that gun ownership inflicts on the owners themselves it would gain greater support. I'm perfectly happy to work with anyone who wants even a few of the same things.
That's not what you're imagining. What you're imagining is a direct correlation between gun ownership and inflicted damage, which is a truly ignorant position to take.

The majority of gun owners do not have any such damage. If you only want to bury your head in the sand with statistics, nobody should be allowed to buy sugar, cars, baseball bats, etc, because it's more dangerous to have those things than not too.

I think you are less safe having a keyboard. Let's take it away. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: DietDrThunder

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,299
2,146
126
I believe weapons such as the ar-15 should require extra background checks and a longer waiting period as they are capable of inflicting mass harm very quickly. Magazine sizes should also be reduced and high capacity mags/drums should be regulated just like a weapon. I would even go so far as to require a $200 tax stamp on each one of them with paperwork and if anyone other than the permit holder is in possession of one it should be a felony.
you know, the tax stamp might be the perfect solution. never thought of using it before. suppressors are legal and reasonably obtainable, but rare, and i think you'd be hard-pressed to find a case where a legally owned one has been used in a crime.

it increases the barrier to acquisition, without necessarily making it ridiculous, and you could throw in some enhanced checks (somewhere between 0 and full-on auto, which I think is class 3?).

people keep guns, the barrier to entry is increased, and enhanced checks are enacted for what some might consider "more serious" hardware.

i think it would be a pretty decent compromise. i'm on board.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
That's not what you're imagining. What you're imagining is a direct correlation between gun ownership and inflicted damage, which is a truly ignorant position to take.

The majority of gun owners do not have any such damage. If you only want to bury your head in the sand with statistics, nobody should be allowed to buy sugar, cars, baseball bats, etc, because it's more dangerous to have those things than not too.

I think you are less safe having a keyboard. Let's take it away. :D
This post shows a near total ignorance of how statistics work and what my argument is. In addition it shows you didn’t bother to read the thread as your silly ‘cars’ argument has already been addressed.

If you would like I can share some of the empirical research that discuss the effect of gun ownership on odds ratios for homicide and suicide but my guess is you will invent reasons to ignore that too. Needless to say, the average American is less safe with a gun than without one.
 

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,421
127
106
You will literally get varying reasons from millions of people. Each person has their own reason. It is why I think this "you don't need that gun" is such a non-starter. I dont care how they are marketed. Because the vast majority of owners of the weapon never use it to commit a crime.

One has to ask why the AR-15 has become so popular in the past decade when it has been on the market since the early 70s, nearly 50 years, and mostly snubbed during that time until ~ 10 years ago. I think we will find our wars against brown people may have something to do with it.
I agree, you will.

If you look at the raw data, you're going to see a whole quagmire of societal issues involved. Nearly 2/3rds of firearm deaths are suicides. Handguns rank the highest in homicide deaths. Statistically, African Americans are overwhelmingly represented in being both the victim and perpetrator of gun violence. Yet, American males make up the dominant perpetrators of mass shootings.

All of this can be traced down to an erosion of fatherhood and family structure in America.

Mass shootings can be looked at separately from gun violence, but I still go back to the gun industry regulating itself. There are clearly societal issues going on here. I realize that it's the people behind the guns that kill people, but it's up to the gun industry to regulate itself in a manner that prevents weapons, especially weapons of extreme lethality like assault rifles, from getting into the hands of those mentally unfit to own one. At the same time, the rest of America needs to start taking fatherhood seriously. And one of two things is going to happen: Either the gun industry takes ownership for itself, or towns, cities, and even potentially states are going to start banning the sale of assault rifles.

And it's already happening - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illinois-town-votes-to-ban-assault-rifles-fine-violators-1000-per-day/
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldkingclue

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
We've already had an assault weapon ban. It didn't do anything and was dropped.

Fern
You had an assault weapon manufacturing ban, not a ban on ownership with confiscation in place. There's a significant difference. That's why it didn't do anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
I find it quite disturbing that 6 people would like this post given how you ended it, even though the ending was sarcastic. As for the rest of your post, you have no idea how quickly a practiced shooter can shoot and reload a revolver. Here is an, admittedly, extreme example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

There are also tools and techniques to quickly reload a shotgun.

You post is one of the many reasons why gun advocates don't take people like you seriously.

ALL semi-automatics should be banned. Handguns, shotguns, long guns. No grandfathering, no special tax stamps, no exceptions. They have no reason to be owned by citizens, same as automatic weapons. Screw the "but what is an assault weapon?" stupidity from the gun lobby. That goes away. You want to defend yourself with a revolver? Blow your brains out with a shotgun? Shoot up your former place of employment with lever action rifle? You go right ahead.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,498
2,199
126
I find it quite disturbing that 6 people would like this post given how you ended it, even though the ending was sarcastic. As for the rest of your post, you have no idea how quickly a practiced shooter can shoot and reload a revolver. Here is an, admittedly, extreme example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

There are also tools and techniques to quickly reload a shotgun.

You post is one of the many reasons why gun advocates don't take people like you seriously.
Cool. Thanks for letting us now. Now we will ban those too :)
 

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,512
208
106
I find it quite disturbing that 6 people would like this post given how you ended it, even though the ending was sarcastic. As for the rest of your post, you have no idea how quickly a practiced shooter can shoot and reload a revolver. Here is an, admittedly, extreme example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

There are also tools and techniques to quickly reload a shotgun.

You post is one of the many reasons why gun advocates don't take people like you seriously.
Jerry Miculek is not human.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FerrelGeek

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,635
10,672
136
I find it quite disturbing that 6 people would like this post given how you ended it, even though the ending was sarcastic. As for the rest of your post, you have no idea how quickly a practiced shooter can shoot and reload a revolver. Here is an, admittedly, extreme example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

There are also tools and techniques to quickly reload a shotgun.

You post is one of the many reasons why gun advocates don't take people like you seriously.
Single shot then reload everything, problem improved! In case the correct terms aren't being used: No clips, no magazines, no revolvers, load and fire a single round then have to manually load the next round with your fingers.

If you don't fingers maybe learn how to do it with your toes.
 

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,512
208
106
Single shot then reload everything, problem improved! In case the correct terms aren't being used: No clips, no magazines, no revolvers, load and fire a single round then have to manually load the next round with your fingers.

If you don't fingers maybe learn how to do it with your toes.
and limit free speech to a single word a day
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Single shot then reload everything, problem improved! In case the correct terms aren't being used: No clips, no magazines, no revolvers, load and fire a single round then have to manually load the next round with your fingers.

If you don't fingers maybe learn how to do it with your toes.
I live in a rural area. No police nearby. WTF good is a single shot gun? 3 armed robbers show up at my house that gun would be useless/suicide.

Fern
 
  • Like
Reactions: DietDrThunder

ASK THE COMMUNITY