• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Should they ban assault weapons?

Should they ban assault weapons?

  • Total voters
    207
Well Chicago has very strict gun laws and they had 56 shootings last weekend so...
 
jgarner said:
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.
Click to expand...
73.3% of Sherdoggers in here think you're the pedantic asshat for insisting that we impose a ban which you yourself obviously don't have the education on firearms to clearly define. If you weren't so ignorant you would be aware that there are quite concrete parameters that can be defined for any proposed ban if we decide to distinguish such a class on actual functionality and capability. There is no such clear classification of "assault weapons".

Perhaps if those who are so keen on banishing firearms learned just the tiniest bit about them rural American gunowners wouldn't be so skeptical that the clowns are running the circus. Every time I've been receptive to these arguments, and every time the fucking Democrats roll out a blanket bill that wouldn't have done anything to prevent what just happened, but they don't care, because as Rahm Emanuel once said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."
 
Dolomite said:
Do you remember 1994 - 2004?
Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Public Safety and Recreation Firearms Use Protection Act subsection wasn't perfect by any means. It lead to many weird rules, and was by no means simple.


klnOmega said:
1) Not really. 13,500 is 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.
Click to expand...


13,500 isn't many people? That's just under 1 person everyday in each state. That's a lot of unnecessary deaths. Yes, handgun violence is a lot more common than rifle violence as you so vividly described in a blatantly racist manner.
 
jgarner said:
13,500 isn't many people? That's just under 1 person everyday in each state. That's a lot of unnecessary deaths. Yes, handgun violence is a lot more common than rifle violence as you so vividly described in a blatantly racist manner.
Click to expand...

50 a day in a country of 300,000,000?
Lol, its literally nothing.

Odds are that neither you, nor anyone close to you, will die to gun violence. Relax. Sugary drinks and alcohol is going to kill you well before the gunmen do.


And again, of those 50 or so deaths a day, probably like 48 or 49 of them are to handguns, so what the hell do you care about ARs for?

Don't know what race has to do with any of this. You are one of those retards that just scream racist at everyone who disagrees with you, aren't you?
 
jgarner said:
I think any reasonable person would include the Mini 14 in a ban on high capacity firearms. It takes 30 round mags and has the fire rate of the AR. It's actually one of my favorite rifles. I don't think banning weapons is the answer though. It's a band-aid approach to a bigger problem. Once you rid yourself of high capacity weapons, they will simply use the next best thing..
Click to expand...
That won't do any good either. The VT shooter killed over 30 people with a 10 shot .22 pistol and a 15 shot 9mm pistol.
 
jgarner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not simple at all... but if they really want to try to infringe upon someone's rights granted by the constitution then they have to put in the time to figure out exactly how they want to infringe upon that right. It can't just be "any weapon which looks like it could be used in combat" or any other bullshit like that.
 
klnOmega said:
50 a day in a country of 300,000,000?
Lol, its literally nothing.

Odds are that neither you, nor anyone close to you, will die to gun violence. Relax. Sugary drinks and alcohol is going to kill you well before the gunmen do.
Click to expand...

I've been a victim of gun violence. My neighbor's son was shot in the chest at a mall (survived). A kid two houses down from me murdered my neighbor from 1 house down from me's nephew at a park on July 4th last year. There's plenty of gun violence where I'm at, but it's skewed because I live in on of the most violent areas of the country. At one point there was like a 1 in 7 chance of being a victim of a violent crime in my area.

50 people a day isn't nothing unless you're completely heartless. I'll guarantee when it's your family that becomes part of the statistic, you wouldn't feel that callous towards 50 humans a day.
 
So take the 248 gun homicides from 'rifles' in 2014, assuming this is the correct number.

Then let's travel back in time and have assault rifles banned in 2014

How might this have changed things?

a) of the 248, how many of those were by 'assault rifles' compared to other rifles
a) of the assault rifle subset, would any of those people gotten their hands on one anyways despite a ban
b) of the assault rifle subset, for those that would not have access to one, would they simply have used a different gun such as a hand gun or other rifle?

How many deaths would have really been prevented? Certainly not 248

Now considering that it would be a subset of a subset of 248, how much time, energy, money, new problems, etc is it really worth spending and creating?

Is the hoopla and rhetoric in line with the size of the issue? Clearly not.
 
Last edited:
jgarner said:
I've been a victim of gun violence. My neighbor's son was shot in the chest at a mall (survived). A kid two houses down from me murdered my neighbor from 1 house down from me's nephew at a park on July 4th last year. There's plenty of gun violence where I'm at, but it's skewed because I live in on of the most violent areas of the country. At one point there was like a 1 in 7 chance of being a victim of a violent crime in my area.

50 people a day isn't nothing unless you're completely heartless. I'll guarantee when it's your family that becomes part of the statistic, you wouldn't feel that callous towards 50 humans a day.
Click to expand...



Edit: you say you were shot in a following post. My mistake.
 
The Higher Power said:
That won't do any good either. The VT shooter killed over 30 people with a 10 shot .22 pistol and a 15 shot 9mm pistol.
Click to expand...

That's why I included my last sentence. If we banned all guns, people would simply use knives and machetes.


usmctanker242 said:
Not simple at all... but if they really want to try to infringe upon someone's rights granted by the constitution then they have to put in the time to figure out exactly how they want to infringe upon that right. It can't just be "any weapon which looks like it could be used in combat" or any other bullshit like that.
Click to expand...

Yep. I actually like what Bill O'Reilly said the other day regarding turning all gun crime into federal crimes with mandatory minimums. I think that would drastically change the situation when people know that using a gun in a robbery will give them a guaranteed 10 year bid.

I was shot at 17 times by a home intruder. The first round went about a foot in front of my face. The guy who shot at me only got 13 months and he was a felon in possession with drugs in his house. They had SWAT pull him out of his house. I don't have PTSD from that. I never claimed to. Then people wonder why gun crime is so common. People don't get punished for it.
 
Get rid of assault rifles and give us more protection rifles.
 
jgarner said:
I've been a victim of gun violence. My neighbor's son was shot in the chest at a mall (survived). A kid two houses down from me murdered my neighbor from 1 house down from me's nephew at a park on July 4th last year. There's plenty of gun violence where I'm at, but it's skewed because I live in on of the most violent areas of the country. At one point there was like a 1 in 7 chance of being a victim of a violent crime in my area.

50 people a day isn't nothing unless you're completely heartless. I'll guarantee when it's your family that becomes part of the statistic, you wouldn't feel that callous towards 50 humans a day.
Click to expand...

Odds are, my family aren't to do die to guns. Its red meat, alcohol, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, and aspartme that will probably kill them. That, or a car accident of some shit.
Want to live longer? Eat healthier. Exercise more. Hit your macro-nutrients. Work less. That will take you a lot further than reducing gun crime.


And look, a lot of shit kills 50 people a day. Zimbabwe is suffering under a drought right now, and nearly 1/4 of the population are mal-nutritioned and at risk for dying from starvation. Wanna save lives? Stop throwing the "racist" insult around, and send some damn food to Africa.
 
jgarner said:
That's why I included my last sentence. If we banned all guns, people would simply use knives and machetes.




Yep. I actually like what Bill O'Reilly said the other day regarding turning all gun crime into federal crimes with mandatory minimums. I think that would drastically change the situation when people know that using a gun in a robbery will give them a guaranteed 10 year bid.


No you dumbass. I was shot at 17 times by a home intruder. The first round went about a foot in front of my face. The guy who shot at me only got 13 months and he was a felon in possession with drugs in his house. They had SWAT pull him out of his house. I don't have PTSD from that. I never claimed to. Then people wonder why gun crime is so common. People don't get punished for it.
Click to expand...

A guy broke into your house, shot at you 17 times, and only got 13 months? Can you post a link to anything talking about this... sounds beyond extreme.
 
Per the CDC, our gun homicide rate is 3.43. You have a .0000343% of being shot and killed. Much less if you aren't athletic and explosive.

Gun Homicide Rates (Per 100,000)
All: 3.43
White: 1.34
Hispanic: 3.31
Black: 14.21
Asian: .88
White Males: 1.9
Hispanic Males: 5.62
Black Males: 26.77
Asian Males: 1.37

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
 
jgarner said:
That's why I included my last sentence. If we banned all guns, people would simply use knives and machetes.




Yep. I actually like what Bill O'Reilly said the other day regarding turning all gun crime into federal crimes with mandatory minimums. I think that would drastically change the situation when people know that using a gun in a robbery will give them a guaranteed 10 year bid.

I was shot at 17 times by a home intruder. The first round went about a foot in front of my face. The guy who shot at me only got 13 months and he was a felon in possession with drugs in his house. They had SWAT pull him out of his house. I don't have PTSD from that. I never claimed to. Then people wonder why gun crime is so common. People don't get punished for it.
Click to expand...

Giving more time to violent, gun weilding criminals is what I call "common sense gun legislation", but unfortunately, that isn't a solution the left is putting forward.
 
The only basis needed for being included in a no fly list or a terrorist watch list is suspicion, nothing else. If you ban people from doing certain things because they are on one of those lists, you're allowing the government to arbitrarily remove rights based on no evidence whatsoever. I don't care about the snackbars that end up on the list, sometimes it could be a good thing, however the potential for abuse is off the charts. The government could simply chuck any controversial figure that they don't like on the list.
 
RerouteToRemain said:
And an estimated 248 were from semi auto rifles last year.
Click to expand...

Do you know if the 248 was for all semi-auto rifles or was it an 'assault rifle' subset?

If it includes all semi-autos then the numbers that would fall under the 'assault rifle' category would be much smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,383
Messages
58,435,407
Members
176,037
Latest member
Freezing Moon

Share this page

Back
Top