• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 6 - 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.
Every time there is a gun control discussion the ori death folks come in here with this gun slang talk
Fern said:
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
Click to expand...

Wow rural america must be really dangerous. Glad I live in the city, it's a lot safer here, it seems.
 
Thebobo said:
Every time there is a gun control discussion the ori death folks come in here with this gun slang talk


Wow rural america must be really dangerous. Glad I live in the city, it's a lot safer here, it seems.
Click to expand...
It's pretty dangerous if you're a criminal.

I've lived in big cities (Miami, New York, Paris, London, Berlin), and no, it's not safer.

Fern
 
Fern said:
It's pretty dangerous if you're a criminal.

I've lived in big cities (Miami, New York, Paris, London, Berlin), and no, it's not safer.

Fern
Click to expand...

Sucks to be you. I've lived in NYC all my life and I live in a zip code which has had 2 murders in 20 years. 1 was a homeless guy getting his face kicked in and the 2nd was a wife who was murdered by her jealous husband.

No fucking way will I believe rural America is safer with all the gun nuts.
 
IJTSSG said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

Nothing else needs to be said.
Click to expand...
latest

Now nothing else needs to be said.
 
Fern said:
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
Click to expand...

If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?
 
mikeymikec said:
If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?
Click to expand...
If its in the bible belt they could just belt them over the head a couple of times with the good book as religitards have lots of experience using it that way.😛
 
mikeymikec said:
If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?
Click to expand...

So since he lives off the beaten trail, a drive from police and he possibly can be out numbered by ninja like robbers he should just not bother trying to protect his family? Maybe we should have training classes so people can get certified to protect their families?

What blows my mind is everyone that wants gun restrictions comes up with all these great ideas but don't bother with the one constant here. Criminals have access to weapons and will continue to.. Banning guns that are legally acquired has no affect on illegal weapons. Weapons get stolen from people but do you think if there were none to steal they wouldn't bother pursuing guns anymore?! They come in illegally and are sold out of trunks. Kind of like how drugs work in this country...
 
Kneedragger said:
So since he lives off the beaten trail, a drive from police and he possibly can be out numbered by ninja like robbers he should just not bother trying to protect his family? Maybe we should have training classes so people can get certified to protect their families?
Click to expand...

He raised the idiotic example as a reason why he needs firearms, and I have no idea why you added "ninja-like" to your response; it's logical that burglars are either going to take the stealthy approach or just go all-in straight away. In either case it's going to take the average person by surprise, whether or not they're tooled up as much as practically possible.

Furthermore, you're acting like firearms are the only way to defend what's you and yours, and you're adopting common tactic of assuming extremes to disparage the opposing arguments: try to avoid it, it's idiotic.

As a side note, I'm all for self-defence classes; frankly I'm sure that there are plenty of things the average person could learn about defending their person, family and possessions. ie. it's not the size of the weapon that counts, it's what you do with it.

What blows my mind is everyone that wants gun restrictions comes up with all these great ideas but don't bother with the one constant here. Criminals have access to weapons and will continue to.. Banning guns that are legally acquired has no affect on illegal weapons. Weapons get stolen from people but do you think if there were none to steal they wouldn't bother pursuing guns anymore?! They come in illegally and are sold out of trunks. Kind of like how drugs work in this country...
Click to expand...

If you restrict the availability of firearms and means of legal ownership then it is logical that they will be less easily available. If they're less easy to acquire, then logically less people "good" or "bad" will have them.

Furthermore, guns are not like drugs, alcohol or any other vices as far as the average person is concerned, so the comparison does not work.

Also, if you're going to bother responding, then try and actually answer the questions and points I put forward.
 
Carson Dyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree assault type rifles like the AR-15 should definitely be banned. I would favor simply a magazine size restriction on the other type of semi-automatic weapons. Joe average citizen certainly does not need a 15 round glock to defend himself. Something like a 3 (shotguns, rifles) or 5 round (handguns) capacity limit would be reasonable. I also think you have to apply these rules to new gun sales, not existing weapons. It would be a start, and as much as I think these are reasonable, I dont think the government should come into your house and take your stuff or force you to modify it. I also favor a limit to the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at one time. Now personally, I would like to see more restrictions, but these would be a reasonable compromise. For those whose life is somehow unfulfilled without firing an assault rifle, they could be made available for rent at gun ranges for recreational shooting.
 
mikeymikec said:
He raised the idiotic example as a reason why he needs firearms, and I have no idea why you added "ninja-like" to your response; it's logical that burglars are either going to take the stealthy approach or just go all-in straight away. In either case it's going to take the average person by surprise, whether or not they're tooled up as much as practically possible.

Furthermore, you're acting like firearms are the only way to defend what's you and yours, and you're adopting common tactic of assuming extremes to disparage the opposing arguments: try to avoid it, it's idiotic.

As a side note, I'm all for self-defence classes; frankly I'm sure that there are plenty of things the average person could learn about defending their person, family and possessions. ie. it's not the size of the weapon that counts, it's what you do with it.

If you restrict the availability of firearms and means of legal ownership then it is logical that they will be less easily available. If they're less easy to acquire, then logically less people "good" or "bad" will have them.

Furthermore, guns are not like drugs, alcohol or any other vices as far as the average person is concerned, so the comparison does not work.

Also, if you're going to bother responding, then try and actually answer the questions and points I put forward.
Click to expand...

Your opinion on what's practical to protect ones family is just plain stupid. You can chose to sit and wait for the cops while some chose to actually use a weapon whatever it may be. Just because one wants to use something that is legal and you feel might be an extreme measure is irrelevant. He pointed out a single shot wouldn't help much. He didn't say he wanted a machine gun on a turret..

So comparing two things that are illegal but still can be bought out of a trunk doesn't work? Please elaborate.. Because I'm talking about criminals not regular citizens..
 
Kneedragger said:
Your opinion on what's practical to protect ones family is just plain stupid. You can chose to sit and wait for the cops while some chose to actually use a weapon whatever it may be.
Click to expand...

I didn't advocate waiting for the cops. As I said before, if you're going to bother responding to my posts then actually respond to what I wrote. I'm not interested in your straw men.

Just because one wants to use something that is legal and you feel might be an extreme measure is irrelevant. He pointed out a single shot wouldn't help much. He didn't say he wanted a machine gun on a turret..
Click to expand...

Well done for pointing out what the argument isn't about. My opinion about how extreme the measure is wasn't relevant to the point I was making in counter to Fern either. Your straw men are mating like bunnies.

So comparing two things that are illegal but still can be bought out of a trunk doesn't work? Please elaborate.. Because I'm talking about criminals not regular citizens..
Click to expand...

A criminal buys a firearm in order to threaten others with. A drug user buys drugs to get high (something which in itself is not a crime against others). I'm failing to see any kind of element in common here.
 
Last edited:
Fern said:
It's pretty dangerous if you're a criminal.

I've lived in big cities (Miami, New York, Paris, London, Berlin), and no, it's not safer.

Fern
Click to expand...

But in all data suggests you’re going to be attacked by a friend or family member. Guns aren’t used on “criminals” like you suggest. It’s just a fantasy kept alive by an insignificant number of incidents.
 
mikeymikec said:
I didn't advocate waiting for the cops. As I said before, if you're going to bother responding to my posts then actually respond to what I wrote. I'm not interested in your straw men.

Well done for pointing out what the argument isn't about. My opinion about how extreme the measure is wasn't relevant to the point I was making in counter to Fern either. Your straw men are mating like bunnies.
Click to expand...

My mention of waiting for cops is pointing out that some men or women would rather protect their family with a firearm. And if they chose to use a legal firearm that shoots more than one at a time it's not your place to say otherwise. That is because you said "If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?" Implying that he has a fantasy from a movie and doesn't need anything more than a single shot. Most adults that have been around firarms for a while know what a single shot is capable of regardless of what we have seen in a movie Strawmen?! lol sure..

mikeymikec said:
A criminal buys a firearm in order to threaten others with. A drug user buys drugs to get high (something which in itself is not a crime against others). I'm failing to see any kind of element in common here.
Click to expand...


A criminal buys firearms to commit crimes and kill people. You're right what the product is intended for is different, but what you're failing to grasp here is they are both illegal and people are still able to get their hands on them with money. My point isn't what the use is for its the availability of them.

Strawmen..
 
Kneedragger said:
My mention of waiting for cops is pointing out that some men or women would rather protect their family with a firearm.
Click to expand...

You do realise this sentence makes absolutely no sense, don't you? You're attempting to defend your straw man in some way, but you should just concede the point that it was an irrelevant thing to say.

And if they chose to use a legal firearm that shoots more than one at a time it's not your place to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Ok, you seem to be experiencing a similar difficulty to OutHouse. This is a discussion forum: What we say here makes absolutely no difference to anything. If you don't want to discuss a point, then don't.

That is because you said "If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?" Implying that he has a fantasy from a movie and doesn't need anything more than a single shot.
Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely. If three armed men show up at a person's house, that person is outnumbered. There's a clear tactical disadvantage that would require the defender to be significantly better prepared, more skilled and better armed (or a variable mix of all three, blind luck aside). It's not logical to assume that they would be better prepared, because if they knew the robbers were coming then sitting at home alone waiting for them makes no sense. It's not logical to assume that they would have greater skills in defending their turf than those attempting to rob them because it could logically be the either way around, and the defender is still outnumbered. It's not logical to assume that the defender would be better armed either (again, they're outnumbered), or it is at least significantly offset by the fact that the defender is likely to be more careful in what they fire at given the things they value surround them.

A criminal buys firearms to commit crimes and kill people. You're right what the product is intended for is different, but what you're failing to grasp here is they are both illegal and people are still able to get their hands on them with money. My point isn't what the use is for its the availability of them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you had a point to make that hadn't already been made and countered:

mikeymikec said:
If you restrict the availability of firearms and means of legal ownership then it is logical that they will be less easily available. If they're less easy to acquire, then logically less people "good" or "bad" will have them.
Click to expand...
 
mikeymikec said:
You do realise this sentence makes absolutely no sense, don't you? You're attempting to defend your straw man in some way, but you should just concede the point that it was an irrelevant thing to say.



Ok, you seem to be experiencing a similar difficulty to OutHouse. This is a discussion forum: What we say here makes absolutely no difference to anything. If you don't want to discuss a point, then don't.



You missed my point entirely. If three armed men show up at a person's house, that person is outnumbered. There's a clear tactical disadvantage that would require the defender to be significantly better prepared, more skilled and better armed (or a variable mix of all three, blind luck aside). It's not logical to assume that they would be better prepared, because if they knew the robbers were coming then sitting at home alone waiting for them makes no sense. It's not logical to assume that they would have greater skills in defending their turf than those attempting to rob them because it could logically be the either way around, and the defender is still outnumbered. It's not logical to assume that the defender would be better armed either (again, they're outnumbered), or it is at least significantly offset by the fact that the defender is likely to be more careful in what they fire at given the things they value surround them.



Sorry, I thought you had a point to make that hadn't already been made and countered:
Click to expand...

Haha keep fighting your fight man.

There is a reason why Americans pay the NRA and want their guns regardless of what you feel. Since you don't want to understand anything you'll never get it.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Really? Ever heard of a constitutional amendment? We have 27 of them to date. That means, so far, 27 times something has been up for debate and changed. Sorry to make you look stupid, but someone had to.
Click to expand...


Ever hear of the bill of rights, does your liberal drunken commie brain even know what that is? And which radified ammendment took rights and freedoms away from citizens???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top