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

[fskimospy]

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.

Yep. This is the actual answer.

 

[Bird222]

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.

Uh, handguns can do that too. See Virginia Tech. That fool had a 9mm and a freakin' .22 and killed 32 people.

 

[fskimospy]

thread title is misleading
weapons used by armies/terrorists are full auto/select fire
these cannot be bought over the counter
therefore they are already banned/regulated

have a nice day

Full auto/select fire capability has basically zero to do with how effective a weapon is for killing.

 

[fskimospy]

Uh, handguns can do that too. See Virginia Tech. That fool had a 9mm and a freakin' .22 and killed 32 people.

This is very true. The gun debate often gets caught up in things like the AR-15 when handguns are the primary problem. We should be working on banning those far more than these rifles.

 

[mdram]

Full auto/select fire capability has basically zero to do with how effective a weapon is for killing.

they why not limit the armed forces to semi auto?
is that next on the agenda?

 

[Bird222]

This is very true. The gun debate often gets caught up in things like the AR-15 when handguns are the primary problem. We should be working on banning those far more than these rifles.

This makes more sense based on the data but somehow anti's don't really talk about that. Just the scary looking AR-15. 🙄

 

[fskimospy]

they why not limit the armed forces to semi auto?
is that next on the agenda?

The armed forces are already moving back towards that on their own. Modern military training emphasizes semiautomatic fire in almost all situations.

 

[Puffnstuff]

This makes more sense based on the data but somehow anti's don't really talk about that. Just the scary looking AR-15. 🙄

Exposure therapy to the rescue....🙄

 

[IEC]

Rifles aren't the problem, though they are an easy thing to blame. More people are killed with hammers each year than with rifles per FBI statistics. So-called gun violence and violence overall have roughly halved since the 1990s - the trend is downward, despite gun sales reaching all time records year after year since around 2011. Schools are also safer than ever, despite the media contagion surrounding shootings. Your children are more likely to be killed by lightning than be shot at school. So stop letting the media fool you into paranoia about a perceived risk that is far out of proportion to reality.

Keep in mind the deadliest school massacre happened back in 1927 using primitive explosives... it would be relatively trivial to use this, or other equally deadly means to cause death and mayhem if that is the objective. The truck attacks in Nice being a rather gruesome example. It is extremely difficult to defend against lone wolf attackers.

BTW, the poll uses a leading question and trap answer choices. It's pretty clear what the OP's viewpoint is from how the poll is written.

 

[Bird222]

Rifles aren't the problem, though they are an easy thing to blame. More people are killed with hammers each year than with rifles per FBI statistics. So-called gun violence and violence overall have roughly halved since the 1990s - the trend is downward, despite gun sales reaching all time records year after year since around 2011. Schools are also safer than ever, despite the media contagion surrounding shootings. Your children are more likely to be killed by lightning than be shot at school. So stop letting the media fool you into paranoia about a perceived risk that is far out of proportion to reality.

Keep in mind the deadliest school massacre happened back in 1927 using primitive explosives... it would be relatively trivial to use this, or other equally deadly means to cause death and mayhem if that is the objective. The truck attacks in Nice being a rather gruesome example. It is extremely difficult to defend against lone wolf attackers.

BTW, the poll uses a leading question and trap answer choices. It's pretty clear what the OP's viewpoint is from how the poll is written.

Facts seem to get ignored regarding this issue, but good on you for trying.

 

[fskimospy]

Rifles aren't the problem, though they are an easy thing to blame. More people are killed with hammers each year than with rifles per FBI statistics. So-called gun violence and violence overall have roughly halved since the 1990s - the trend is downward, despite gun sales reaching all time records year after year since around 2011. Schools are also safer than ever, despite the media contagion surrounding shootings. Your children are more likely to be killed by lightning than be shot at school. So stop letting the media fool you into paranoia about a perceived risk that is far out of proportion to reality.

Keep in mind the deadliest school massacre happened back in 1927 using primitive explosives... it would be relatively trivial to use this, or other equally deadly means to cause death and mayhem if that is the objective. The truck attacks in Nice being a rather gruesome example. It is extremely difficult to defend against lone wolf attackers.

BTW, the poll uses a leading question and trap answer choices. It's pretty clear what the OP's viewpoint is from how the poll is written.

This is very misleading. Gun SALES are way up, but the percentage of households owning a gun is significantly down. If anything, the data reinforces the large amount of empirical evidence that gun ownership is the problem.

School shootings are not the problem though, I agree. It's gun violence and guns in general. We shouldn't be focusing on eliminating guns in schools, we should be focusing on eliminating guns, period.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yep. This is the actual answer.

Then be ready for the status quo. You'll find people as agreeable to that as to making abortion a states right matter. I'm for neither.

"They are coming for your guns" is no longer an illusion, but a real desire. It isn't about assault weapons. It isn't about background checks unless that a means to an end to find for future seizure.

Someone is going to have to lie their asses off to get what you suggest, a lot of Republican level deception until it's too late.

Well, virtually unlimited access on one side and seizure of the majority of guns on the other.

Hobson's choice.

 

[mdram]

This is very misleading. Gun SALES are way up, but the percentage of households owning a gun is significantly down. If anything, the data reinforces the large amount of empirical evidence that gun ownership is the problem.

School shootings are not the problem though, I agree. It's gun violence and guns in general. We shouldn't be focusing on eliminating guns in schools, we should be focusing on eliminating guns, period.

people dont want to admit they own a firearm. they feel they will be ostracized. or viewed as a gun nut

 

[fskimospy]

Then be ready for the status quo. You'll find people as agreeable to that as to making abortion a states right matter. I'm for neither.

"They are coming for your guns" is no longer an illusion, but a real desire. It isn't about assault weapons. It isn't about background checks unless that a means to an end to find for future seizure.

Someone is going to have to lie their asses off to get what you suggest, a lot of Republican level deception until it's too late.

Well, virtually unlimited access on one side and seizure of the majority of guns on the other.

Hobson's choice.

I agree it isn't an easy solution to implement but the data shows very strongly it's the right one. I'm down with incremental change if that's what it takes but we should always keep the end goal in sight.

The data is clear, guns provide a negative benefit for personal safety. Their only rational use cases are for hunting and entertainment, both of which can largely be enjoyed without keeping a firearm in the home. Since gun ownership in the home has no benefits and large costs, we should be working to eliminate it as much as possible.

 

[Kneedragger]

Rifles aren't the problem, though they are an easy thing to blame. More people are killed with hammers each year than with rifles per FBI statistics. So-called gun violence and violence overall have roughly halved since the 1990s - the trend is downward, despite gun sales reaching all time records year after year since around 2011. Schools are also safer than ever, despite the media contagion surrounding shootings. Your children are more likely to be killed by lightning than be shot at school. So stop letting the media fool you into paranoia about a perceived risk that is far out of proportion to reality.

Keep in mind the deadliest school massacre happened back in 1927 using primitive explosives... it would be relatively trivial to use this, or other equally deadly means to cause death and mayhem if that is the objective. The truck attacks in Nice being a rather gruesome example. It is extremely difficult to defend against lone wolf attackers.

BTW, the poll uses a leading question and trap answer choices. It's pretty clear what the OP's viewpoint is from how the poll is written.

Like these ?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls

 

[mdram]

Like these ?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls

please stop posting data, anti's dont want data, it doesnt make them feel any better

 

[fskimospy]

please stop posting data, anti's dont want data, it doesnt make them feel any better

Three posts up you tried to rationalize away data because it didn't make you feel better, haha. Might want to attend to that beam in your eye.

If anyone wants to talk actual data about guns and gun ownership I have tons of it and virtually all of it favors the gun control position.

 

[Kneedragger]

Rifles aren't the problem, though they are an easy thing to blame. More people are killed with hammers each year than with rifles per FBI statistics. So-called gun violence and violence overall have roughly halved since the 1990s - the trend is downward, despite gun sales reaching all time records year after year since around 2011. Schools are also safer than ever, despite the media contagion surrounding shootings. Your children are more likely to be killed by lightning than be shot at school. So stop letting the media fool you into paranoia about a perceived risk that is far out of proportion to reality.

Keep in mind the deadliest school massacre happened back in 1927 using primitive explosives... it would be relatively trivial to use this, or other equally deadly means to cause death and mayhem if that is the objective. The truck attacks in Nice being a rather gruesome example. It is extremely difficult to defend against lone wolf attackers.

BTW, the poll uses a leading question and trap answer choices. It's pretty clear what the OP's viewpoint is from how the poll is written.

Like these ?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

please stop posting data, anti's dont want data, it doesnt make them feel any better

If it came from Jimmy Kimmel would you consider it?!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

people dont want to admit they own a firearm. they feel they will be ostracized. or viewed as a gun nut

I predict the equivalent of "my dog age it".

I agree it isn't an easy solution to implement but the data shows very strongly it's the right one. I'm down with incremental change if that's what it takes but we should always keep the end goal in sight.

The data is clear, guns provide a negative benefit for personal safety. Their only rational use cases are for hunting and entertainment, both of which can largely be enjoyed without keeping a firearm in the home. Since gun ownership in the home has no benefits and large costs, we should be working to eliminate it as much as possible.

Data aren't rights. If the nation ran on data virtually all of those would be gone, measured out against a computed metric. Your right of free speech, your right against illegal search and seizures. Invasions of privacy, etc. This is the basis for extraordinary rendition, profiling- racial and otherwise because one can find a statistic in their favor.

No, we agree on much but here we part ways. I'm for regulations but what you suggest goes far beyond that. I appreciate your honesty and am not going to attempt to sway you but as proposed I oppose.

If we get back to the real world options such as those with serious mental illnesses, not using difficulties as a means to an ever-expanding ban by labeling those with minor issues the same as those determined to be professionally determined to be a threat to society, then we can revisit, but when extreme actions are suggested the motives of those people are now suspect. I'll take yours at face value, but you aren't a person of political power and we (I believe) have a basis for trust.

But on this issue it seems the majority are fighting to maintain a middle ground with no honest brokers, or those who can be trusted as such. All or nothing or almost.

Well we're screwed at pretty much all levels so I suppose this isn't any different.

 

[mikeymikec]

the steps to follow to ban weapons
1. assault weapons
2. semi auto
3. bolt/lever/pump
4. single shot
5. anything that remains
6. knives (unless your a chef then you get an exemption)

dint believe me?
just look at the UK
http://surrenderyourknife.co.uk/

Yup, all knives banned in the UK. Ask me how I eat my dinner. Or how machetes are generally available for sale in the UK.

But seriously, don't let facts get in the way of your rant, life is so much more fun that way.

 

[Genx87]

Well what do you think about restricting assault rifles like AR-15 and the like which were designed for war time use?

Discuss and Vote as you like.

AR-15 wasnt designed for wartime use. Its assault rifle equivalent the M-16 and revised M4 are designed for wartime use. The AR-15 is a civilian version that lacks fully auto or 3 round burst options.

That said if we are going to restrict the use of these weapons at home. I think our govt should set an example and stop being the largest dealer of these weapons in the world.

 

[Genx87]

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.

As an interesting note. The parkland shooter used 10 round mags.

 

[Genx87]

Even though I don't own or care to own a gun, I do support the second amendment fully. At the same time, there's no reason anyone needs to own a AR15-like semi-automatic rifle.

Here is my issue with this line of argument. How do you know what anybody needs?

 

[Genx87]

Yep. This is the actual answer.

So how do you propose to confiscate 200+ million guns?

 

[fskimospy]

Data aren't rights. If the nation ran on data virtually all of those would be gone, measured out against a computed metric. Your right of free speech, your right against illegal search and seizures. Invasions of privacy, etc. This is the basis for extraordinary rendition, profiling- racial and otherwise because one can find a statistic in their favor.

I disagree, I think it would be quite difficult to make a data based argument against the virtues of free speech and preventing the government from arbitrarily searching your house and taking your belongings. I imagine the incentive to produce would be strongly reduced if people were worried about constant, arbitrary seizures of property.

No, we agree on much but here we part ways. I'm for regulations but what you suggest goes far beyond that. I appreciate your honesty and am not going to attempt to sway you but as proposed I oppose.

If we get back to the real world options such as those with serious mental illnesses, not using difficulties as a means to an ever-expanding ban by labeling those with minor issues the same as those determined to be professionally determined to be a threat to society, then we can revisit, but when extreme actions are suggested the motives of those people are now suspect. I'll take yours at face value, but you aren't a person of political power and we (I believe) have a basis for trust.

But on this issue it seems the majority are fighting to maintain a middle ground with no honest brokers, or those who can be trusted as such. All or nothing or almost.

Well we're screwed at pretty much all levels so I suppose this isn't any different.

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.