Should they ban assault weapons?

[RerouteToRemain]

I don't see where you provided proof. You posted a picture and a random quote. It's rather hard to identify the weapon he's holding. It could be an automatic. Can't tell from the exterior. I'm sure there's a dumbass or two that can't tell the difference, but 80% of these people understand the AR platform is primarily semi automatic. It's the capacity and rate of fire that's an issue.

There were around 13,500 gun deaths in 2015. That's a huge problem.

It's an AR15 made from a 80% lower. You can buy an unfinished lower(no background check) receiver and finish it. You cannot however make it full auto. A fire rate of 3600 rpm is 4x faster than an M4.

You can look up the senator story or 80% lower and making your own firearm laws if you want.

And an estimated 248 were from semi auto rifles last year.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I love firearms as well, and I see what you're saying. I guess my feeling is that people were berating the liberal media for originally identifying the weapon as an AR-15, when it was in fact, a Sig MCX. I don't believe they did anything wrong with their initial identification... MOST people would look at that weapon and generalize it as an AR-15, especially in a pressured situation where shit was happening very fast.

Sure, I don't have a problem with people mistaking it. I can completely understand if you don't know what you are looking at you would call it that.

I didn't berate the op. Just let him know what it was and that the original video he posted was actually an $20-30k+ M16.

 

[Madmick]

When they are talking about assault weapons, if you can't discern what they are talking about, then you have some serious intelligence issues. They aren't talking about your Remington 700 hunting rifle. They are talking about semi-automatic rifles that can hold 30 rounds and fire as fast as you pull the trigger. They are talking about rifles where you can reload another 30 rounds in half a second. They are talking about rifles that wouldn't be out of place in a rifle squad in Afghanistan. That's what they are talking about.

There are so many individual variations, that it's hard to classify what is what when gun owners won't even let them have the discussion.

So definite. So concrete.

Someone in here certainly has intelligence issues.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

I wish they'd let me on CNN. I have a fucking answer for all the bullshit questions they put out. I'd pwn them bitches.

 

[djacobox372]

I'd need to see some studies that prove scientifically that assault weapons represent a significant danger to the public and that banning them would have positive impact.

Of course Congress would have to make studying such things legal first.

 

[djacobox372]

What? Fuck no!

You shouldn't have to have a license to own a firearm.

You need a license to own high explosives, poisonous gases, and fully automatic firearms--which are are all as protected by the 2nd amendment as a rifle is.

Rights are not absolute, the government has the right to put restrictions in place if one right threatens another right (right to life for example). In the same way that freedom of speech doesn't allow you yell fire in a crowded theater.

I personally don't think that assault weapons rise to the level of danger that would warrant their banning, but I can see things like a long waiting period to allow a deeper background check being worthwhile.

 

[Madmick]

I'd need to see some studies that prove scientifically that assault weapons represent a significant danger to the public and that banning them would have positive impact.

Of course Congress would have to make studying such things legal first.

I support that measure. When the AMA steps in it's time to at least consider throwing some tax dollars at some major studies.

 

[DoomPatrol]

So definite. So concrete.

Someone in here certainly has intelligence issues.

Yeah that someone is you if you can't discern what someone means by assault weapon when talking in the news. Quit trying to be so witty. It just makes you look like a pedantic asshat. We all know what type of weapons they are talking about. They aren't talking about granddad's shotgun or your old Rem 700 hunting rifle. They are talking about rifles that can put out 30 rounds in 30 seconds. Rifles that would fit the role of assaulting an occupied building well. ARs. AKs. SKS, bullpups, et cetera. It's in no way a concrete term. It can't be. There are simply too many variations of these weapons to make a simple definition.

If you want to talk intelligence levels, I'm more than happy to compare our educational background and professional qualifications.

 

[DoomPatrol]

It's an AR15 made from a 80% lower. You can buy an unfinished lower(no background check) receiver and finish it. You cannot however make it full auto. A fire rate of 3600 rpm is 4x faster than an M4.

You can look up the senator story or 80% lower and making your own firearm laws if you want.

And an estimated 248 were from semi auto rifles last year.

I know what an 80% lower is. I'm actually considering building a new AR from an 80% lower in the next few months. I'm saying you can't tell if it's automatic until you look inside the lower receiver. It very well could be an automatic weapon. The reason you can buy the 80% lower without a background check is because it's just a hunk of metal. It doesn't have the necessary construction to turn it into a rifle without a lot of skilled work. It's much easier for someone to just buy a finished lower or a complete rifle.

You don't even have to get a background check for a private sale in my state. I can literally go to one of several internet forums and find a weapon I want to buy. Then I just arrange the purchase with the seller. The most you'll do is flash your ID.

 

[usmctanker242]

Yeah that someone is you if you can't discern what someone means by assault weapon when talking in the news. Quit trying to be so witty. It just makes you look like a pedantic asshat. We all know what type of weapons they are talking about. They aren't talking about granddad's shotgun or your old Rem 700 hunting rifle. They are talking about rifles that can put out 30 rounds in 30 seconds. Rifles that would fit the role of assaulting an occupied building well. ARs. AKs. SKS, bullpups, et cetera. It's in no way a concrete term. It can't be. There are simply too many variations of these weapons to make a simple definition.

If you want to talk intelligence levels, I'm more than happy to compare our educational background and professional qualifications.

You are 100% correct... so how do you go about banning something which can't even be properly defined? Who makes the call on which specific weapons are and are not banned? Who will be the actual authority in determining this? If you can't define the term, how can you tell a manufacturer the weapon is illegal to produce or sell? Also, if you just use a blanket term, do you expect every police officer to be capable of knowing exactly how this whole ban would work... ie, which weapons are legal and which aren't?

People are being nit-picky about this because it's a constitutional right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If you want to infringe upon that right, you'd better have done your damned homework and have some serious due-process backing you.

Either way, statistics have shown, time and again, that "assault weapons" aren't really an issue.

 

[DoomPatrol]

You are 100% correct... so how do you go about banning something which can't even be properly defined? Who makes the call on which specific weapons are and are not banned? Who will be the actual authority in determining this? If you can't define the term, how can you tell a manufacturer the weapon is illegal to produce or sell? Also, if you just use a blanket term, do you expect every police officer to be capable of knowing exactly how this whole ban would work... ie, which weapons are legal and which aren't?

People are being nit-picky about this because it's a constitutional right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If you want to infringe upon that right, you'd better have done your damned homework and have some serious due-process backing you.

Either way, statistics have shown, time and again, that "assault weapons" aren't really an issue.

Yeah I have no idea. I don't think they should be banned. I have a bigger issue with people pretending like they just can't grasp the term "assault weapon" because it doesn't fit some neat definition. We all understand what type of rifles they mean. So let's stop being pedantic and address the real issue.

I wouldn't say they aren't an issue. They are the weapon of choice for our greatest threat right now. We are only going to have more of these attacks in the future. I think getting rid of gun free zones could be a good start to defending ourselves from these attacks. They are like shooting galleries for terrorists. I always wonder if there had been several sober and armed civilians in the area of these mass shootings, if they could have stopped them.

 

[raty tat tat]

Yes I think I think they should ban them and most guns nobody really needs them.

 

[usmctanker242]

Yeah I have no idea. I don't think they should be banned. I have a bigger issue with people pretending like they just can't grasp the term "assault weapon" because it doesn't fit some neat definition. We all understand what type of rifles they mean. So let's stop being pedantic and address the real issue.

I wouldn't say they aren't an issue. They are the weapon of choice for our greatest threat right now. We are only going to have more of these attacks in the future. I think getting rid of gun free zones could be a good start to defending ourselves from these attacks. They are like shooting galleries for terrorists. I always wonder if there had been several sober and armed civilians in the area of these mass shootings, if they could have stopped them.

How do you figure?

People aren't pretending anything though... the term "assault weapon" can mean different things to different people. For any kind of legislation the term needs to be defined... and if it can't be defined, then just do away with it completely.

 

[usmctanker242]

Yes I think I think they should ban them and most guns nobody really needs them.

Nobody needs a vehicle that can go faster than 65 MPH... ban those as well? What about a kitchen knife... should we ban anything that has a point because points aren't actually needed? What about drugs.. ban those because nobody needs them... wait... that didn't work, did it? So banning something doesn't make it go away? It only creates a black market and stops law-abiding citizens from having it?? HOLY BATSHIT!!

 

[Dolomite]

Of course Congress would have to make studying such things legal first.

/AwGeezNotThisShitAgain.jpg

 

[DoomPatrol]

How do you figure?

People aren't pretending anything though... the term "assault weapon" can mean different things to different people. For any kind of legislation the term needs to be defined... and if it can't be defined, then just do away with it completely.

When they use assault weapons in discussion, they are using it as a catch all phrase for the types of weapons we all know would most likely fit in there. As far as actual legislation goes, they would have to go through a real process of determination to figure things out. With all the subtle variations on these weapon systems, it's sure not going to be a simple definition.

And I'm not even really a fan of legislation.

 

[silicavaginitis]

What,like fists and shit like that?

 

[silicavaginitis]

I think we have a few Gersh Kuntzman's voting ......

 

[Dolomite]

When they use assault weapons in discussion, they are using it as a catch all phrase for the types of weapons we all know would most likely fit in there. As far as actual legislation goes, they would have to go through a real process of determination to figure things out. With all the subtle variations on these weapon systems, it's sure not going to be a simple definition.

Do you remember 1994 - 2004?

 

[klnOmega]

I don't see where you provided proof. You posted a picture and a random quote. It's rather hard to identify the weapon he's holding. It could be an automatic. Can't tell from the exterior. I'm sure there's a dumbass or two that can't tell the difference, but 80% of these people understand the AR platform is primarily semi automatic. It's the capacity and rate of fire that's an issue.

There were around 13,500 gun deaths in 2015. That's a huge problem.

1) Not really. 13,500 isn't that many people. We are a big country.
2) Very few of those were due to "assault weapons". Most gun deaths are Tyrone and East Side Bangaz shooting up TrayTray's Purple Balla Bois with $200 High Point handguns they bought at the pawn shop. Its pretty rare that people knock over liquor stores with a $1500 AR.