Do you support the outright ban of "assault" rifles?

[pr_capone]

Simple...

yes or no.

This thread brought to you by a comment in DC stating we would be surprised by how few people in DC would support the ban. Figured we might as well get numbers.

[rockymtnchief]

Cars aren't in the Constitutiom. My right to bear arms is. Stop trying to take my rights away because you're scared.

[LiveSteam]

Excellent vid

[CrazyPhuD]

So here's the problem, if you ban all armor piercing ammo you ban almost all rifle ammo in existence. Because really outside of 22LR all rifle rounds are going to penetrate soft armor. Besides armor piercing handgun ammo is already illegal.

Why are you proposing to ban a specific magazine capacity? Because you don't like it? Or because you have some evidence that removing them will make a statistically significant difference in crime? For instance the Vtech shootings were done with handguns and magazines 10 rounds or under. People mistake how quickly someone even basically familiar with weapons can change a mag.

Besides if you listen to the freakonomics podcast I posted a while ago looking at police statistics, the number of shootings with > 10 shell casing is a very small fraction of shootings I think it may have been ~1%. Even then in many of those cases mutiple weapons were found. This suggests strongly that any limit on magazine capacity will have a very small impact on crime.

So why do people keep pushing for a ban that will likely have no impact on crime? Because they feel people don't need them? Here's the problem with that logic. At least in this country what you can have isn't about what you 'need'. The only time need should really play in is does the government 'need' to restrict something.

There are valid cases to limit many things but the government should have to show proof of harm and the restriction has a real chance to make a difference before they do so. Banning something just because you don't like it isn't appropriate. Be it for guns or things like who you can marry.

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I think there is really no need to take weapons that are currently legal to own. I would support stopping the sale of further weapons if:

They are primarily military weapons intended for current battlefield service
Are or can easily be converted to full auto.

I would support stopping the sale of:

Clips above 20 rounds
Armor piercing bullets
Other military type ammo (incendiary, tracer rounds and the like)
Any military ordinance from setup machine guns, mortars up to and including nuclear weapons.

Is there a single gun advocate that could live with this?

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

They'll ban armor piercing ammo next. Then the Obama SS can suit up and be well protected.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm pretty sure you don't give a shit who knows what about guns, seeing how the #1 supporters of gun control in the country are law enforcement, who I'm pretty sure we can agree know plenty about gun functionality.

Hmm, now is that the law enforcement that cavity searches 2 women on the side of a road in Texas, or the ones that shot up 2 asian ladies delivering papers in california, or the ones that shot up 17 bystanders in new york?

Can't figure out why some JBTs would support the disarming of citizens.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm pretty sure you don't give a shit who knows what about guns, seeing how the #1 supporters of gun control in the country are law enforcement, who I'm pretty sure we can agree know plenty about gun functionality.

I work with police officers quite often. Some are gun savvy, some aren't. WTF does that have to do with your ignorance on the subject?

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Name for me exactly what functional difference there is between an assault rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber that makes them "so much more dangerous".

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1003

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well the NRA also agrees that people on watch lists should be permitted to buy guns.

We can pick at the low hanging fruit, or we can actually debate what's being debated.

Is this weak assed deflection you're way of saying Brock is right?
And you've proven worthless to try and discuss the subject because you:
1. Don't know what you're talking about and,
2. Aren't willing to learn.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by GoWalrus

They'll ban armor piercing ammo next. Then the Obama SS can suit up and be well protected.

The ban on armor piercing Handgun ammo is > 20 years old, if they try to ban armor piercing ammo they will in effect ban most if not all rifle hunting, at least of non varmit game. Won't happen legally at least.

The greater concern is that they'll prohibit all alternative bullets as being too 'dense' or hard and therefore 'armor piercing' and then the EPA will make a rule banning lead ammo as an environmental concern. That will probably get shot down too, but neither of those actions require legislative support to implement.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The ban on armor piercing Handgun ammo is > 20 years old, if they try to ban armor piercing ammo they will in effect ban most if not all rifle hunting, at least of non varmit game. Won't happen legally at least.

The greater concern is that they'll prohibit all alternative bullets as being too 'dense' or hard and therefore 'armor piercing' and then the EPA will make a rule banning lead ammo as an environmental concern. That will probably get shot down too, but neither of those actions require legislative support to implement.

That's already in the works. They're clearing the lead out of shotgun shells now, it' illegal to hunt waterfowl with anything but steel shot.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The ban on armor piercing Handgun ammo is > 20 years old, if they try to ban armor piercing ammo they will in effect ban most if not all rifle hunting, at least of non varmit game. Won't happen legally at least.

The greater concern is that they'll prohibit all alternative bullets as being too 'dense' or hard and therefore 'armor piercing' and then the EPA will make a rule banning lead ammo as an environmental concern. That will probably get shot down too, but neither of those actions require legislative support to implement.

They already are pushing lead shot out. you cant hunt any federal protected Waterfowl with lead shot anymore. Its all steal BBs & it sucks.

Edit radar beat me to it

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Is this weak assed deflection you're way of saying Brock is right?
And you've proven worthless to try and discuss the subject because you:
1. Don't know what you're talking about and,
2. Aren't willing to learn.

He is a coward who expects the government to protect him and I would fancy a bet to assist him with his bills~

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

That's already in the works. They're clearing the lead out of shotgun shells now, it' illegal to hunt waterfowl with anything but steel shot.

Meh as long as a I can still use my megawatt laser on them I'm still good. Besides it makes a damn nice batch of popcorn too!

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by RNR

I would fancy a bet to assist him with his bills~

I think its pretty safe to say Direckshun doesn't work for a living.
Direckshun is either rich or lives off the backs of others. My guess is/the backs of hard working Americans

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying mass shootings with assault weapons tend to be deadlier.

No one can argue that if we ban assault weapons it won't make these mass killings less deadly.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

A mass shooting is not a singular event, by the way. Not any more. Not considering how common they are in this country.

I agree. the empirical evidence is undeniable. Too often the mentally ill, pissed off, grudge holing, mentally ill decide to kill anyone who they think "wronged" them. Regardless if they possess access to assault weapons, its going to happen.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

No one can argue that if we ban assault weapons it won't make these mass killings less deadly.
I agree. the empirical evidence is undeniable. Too often the mentally ill, pissed off, grudge holing, mentally ill decide to kill anyone who they think "wronged" them. Regardless if they possess access to assault weapons, its going to happen.

Pissed off people and the like have been killing people since the dawn of man