Social Should they ban assault weapons in the US?

[Kaiowas]

You don't even understand what strawman is, I did address the argument you retard. Your reading comprehension is so low you fail to understand it. I never said crime rates would be low. I said gun owners would DETER other gun owners from doing excessive crime. Deter does not mean prevent. Also it doesn't matter if there are open carry laws if a business, school, or other establishment has a no gun policy as a part of using their establishment. The law abiding citizen might not carry their gun there as a show of respect to the owner, but a criminal will, because after all, the criminal is there to perform a crime.

deter
verb

de·ter | \ di-ˈtər , dē- \
deterred; deterring
Definition of deter
transitive verb
1: to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting

Deter | Definition of Deter by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)


Reading comprehension...........................

 

[Kaiowas]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

It means they should be able to by tanks, gunships, and bazookas, correct?

So they can be "bad-ass"............

 

[KeepingItReal]

Why are you avoiding answering whether citizens should be allowed to buy F35s or any other fighter jet, tanks, and Stingers? It's a simple yes or no.

deter
verb

de·ter | \ di-ˈtər , dē- \
deterred; deterring
Definition of deter
transitive verb
1: to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting

Deter | Definition of Deter by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)


Reading comprehension...........................

Key word to the definition is the word "or." I'm using the meaning "discourage"

I already answered that question, you asked about Bill Gates and I already said I have no problem with him owning F-35s. Maybe you have me confused with one of the other posters you're arguing with. I have absolutely no issue with citizens owning those.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It means they should be able to by tanks, gunships, and bazookas, correct?

So they can be "bad-ass"............

You said it.

 

[Kaiowas]

You said it.

So you disavow your earlier position whereby you claimed certain arms should not be available to citizens, correct?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So you disavow your earlier position whereby you claimed certain arms should not be available to citizens, correct?

You 'tarded? Seriously.

 

[shinkyoku]

What the hell is an assault rifle?

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, expired 2004, the definition of "assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

 

[Kaiowas]

You 'tarded? Seriously.

Is this where you give up and resort to insults? That's usually what happens when someone gets boxed in and can't reply without contradicting one of the two opposing positions they've taken on the same topic, so I don't blame you.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is this where you give up and resort to insults? That's usually what happens when someone gets boxed in and can't reply without contradicting one of the two opposing positions they've taken on the same topic, so I don't blame you.

When I've repeatedly made my position clear and you continue to misinterpret it in the form of a question then you appear like a real dim bulb. Troll or just plain dumb, either way, it's fucking stupid on your part. What you call an insult I call an observation.

If you have something intelligent to springboard off of in this conversation then now's the time. Otherwise, please don't change the (Killer) AV so I remember not to reply in the future.

 

[BEER]

I voted yes but I know nothing about guns other than they terrify me. Isn’t it true that the vast majority of mass casualty incidents (like 5 plus dead) are done with rifles? Would banning them at least reduce the death total in random attacks like that? Genuine question, I could be way off.

Rifles may be used more often in mass shootings (I genuinely don't know, but imagine the ratio is higher) but they aren't necessarily more effective or guarantee a higher body count.

 

[Kaiowas]

When I've repeatedly made my position clear and you continue to misinterpret it in the form of a question then you appear like a real dim bulb. Troll or just plain dumb, either way, it's fucking stupid on your part. What you call an insult I call an observation.

If you have something intelligent to springboard off of in this conversation then now's the time. Otherwise, please don't change the (Killer) AV so I remember not to reply in the future.

Should there be limits to the 2nd Amendment, yes or no? First you said yes and listed several things like explosives, then you changed your tune and started following KeepItReal's lead and implying there should be no limits. Which is it?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Should there be limits to the 2nd Amendment, yes or no? First you said yes and listed several things like explosives, then you changed your tune and started following KeepItReal's lead and implying there should be no limits. Which is it?

@irish_thug, is this guy a total dipshit or a lousy troll?

 

[Kaiowas]

@irish_thug, is this guy a total dipshit or a lousy troll?

Still can't answer huh?

 

[Day Drinking]

He will go on a rampage, for about what? 1 minute, until which he is shot down by someone else who has a gun. You really didn't think this trough, if everyone is well armed, that acts as a deterrent.

Why do you think the army doesn't let its members have guns on base?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why do you think the army doesn't let its members have guns on base?

Because they draft kids too dumb and irresponsible to vote or drink, and only allow for them to be pointed in the right direction to kill or be killed when it suits their purpose?

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I voted on the fence. I think it's too ingrained in American culture, although there are some weapons I see people walking around with that elicit a bit of a holy shit reaction from me because I'm not used to seeing it as a Brit.

Wouldn't want guns to be legalised over here though.

 

[Natural Order]

ban everything probably... assault cars, assault, ass salt, salt, the worlds too dangerous and scary and needs an honest and trustworthy government saving us from our fear...

Ass salt.



Phrase of the day for me!

 

[spamking]

Rather than ban them, I'd rather there be a license system.

The right to bear arms = every citizen has the right to self defense and owning a handgun, shotgun or rifle. No license needed. This is your right as a law-abiding citizen

Class 2 = "Military Grade" weapons. Training required, a license to own, mental health background check and entered into a database
Collectors Class = Antiques, rare items, dealers, etc.

To me, this is a fair solution. You don't infringe upon basic rights of individuals while making the guns that do more damage and are really just for enthusiasts a bit harder to obtain and hopefully only responsible people would want to own.

The thing with guns is that the genie is out of the bottle. Assault weapons don't go away if you ban them. If people want them, they will get them. America tends to act like they are the world. Unless you got every country to agree to ban assault rifles, you aren't banning them. Even then, they'd be sold on the black market. The best thing you can do is regulate and control who has them. There are always going to be people that slip through the cracks, get their hands on them and commit crimes. As long as you make an effort and have preventative measures in place, it's just something you have to live with as a society.

Almost 30 people die a day from drunk driving. 100 years ago, that wouldn't even be a thing. Now that we have cars, it's something we have to accept as society and something that people will sometimes do. We don't ban cars or alcohol. We just try to prevent people from driving drunk. With ARs and other military grade weapons, we simply need to regulate who has them - not ban them. You can't practically ban them.

From Colion Noir's Instagram . .

297 people according to the FBI were killed with a Rifle in 2018. Not just an AR-15 but all rifles. That means the number of people killed with AR-15s is even lower.

Joe Biden is famous for saying, "you don't need an AR-15, buy a Shotgun". Yet, in 2018 235 people were killed with a shotgun.

Everyone loves to talk about how low the gun deaths are in the UK because they all but banned guns, yet, in 2018 the number of stabbings was so high, the mayor of London implemented a blade ban.

Wanna take a guess how many people died in the US from being stabbed? 1,515 people. That is literally 5X the number of people who were killed with not just the AR15 but all Rifles. Wanna take a guess how many people were killed by hands and feet? 672!

More than 2X the number of people were killed by hands and feet than they were by AR15s.

So someone wants to explain to me, why Joe Biden is Ok with 1,515 people being stabbed to death but wants to ban a gun that has killed less than 300 people? I'll tell you why because it's about control not saving lives.

If it were about saving lives, we'd be talking about the things that kill 5x the number of people that so-called assault weapons do. There is an agenda to destroy the 2nd Amendment because it's the only thing that prevents the government from having absolute power over its people.

The Government is afraid of us because we have guns. In other countries, the government does what the hell it wants because the people don't have a Second Amendment so at best all the people can do is protest, rally, and throw rocks.

That's why they have to use the media to scare us with sensationalism to give up our rights blindly. Whether you like it or not, the only thing, and I mean the only thing, standing in the way of the government having complete dominance over the American people is the 2nd Amendment.

The unconstitutional bills he is referring to are HR 1446 and HR8.

 

[irish_thug]

@irish_thug, is this guy a total dipshit or a lousy troll?

Well he has a maiden av...But it's the same one that was used by a know instigator.

 

[spamking]

Yep. So no, events with dozens of causalities will not be prevented with either a semi-auto rifle ban or the limiting of magazines to 10 rounds. Shooters will simply adjust to what's available. Then the gun grabbers will still cry about guns not being regulated and demand more worthless legislation. All the while they'll bristle at the thought of long sentences for violent criminals and felons in possession.

I need more likes . . .