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.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

Law enforcement also agrees that it would be really nice if there were no miranda rights, no right to an attorney, no right to privacy, and no right to question their authority.

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.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief

Not true. Many sheriffs departments are already stating that they wont support suggested bans. And last I read, the US police chiefs group was against the bans also.

That's not what I'm saying -- I'm not saying law enforcement is unanimously for it.

But the biggest pushes for gun control come from police groups.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And yet the usage of my car is heavily regulated.

Clearly so is the usage of your brain. You anti gun ****heads make me sick~

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

The problem that I have with the logic in the first sentence is that you are taking a singular event (a single mass shooting) and saying that the 14 deaths caused in that one single act committed by a single person justifies infringing on the rights of millions.

Also... the weapon most often used in mass shootings? Not an assault weapon. Its not even close.

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

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

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And yet the usage of my car is heavily regulated.

So is the usage of guns.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And yet the usage of my car is heavily regulated.

No it's not. Check out that 130 mph video in the lounge.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Assault weapons, yes. In some cases.

Ok, little Hitler

[Bo's Pelini]

If you dont like guns shoot yourself with one direck.

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

And yet the usage of my car is heavily regulated.

Why does your car need to have the ability to go over 75? Going over 75 is deadly. You're the one that used the term "practical usage"

[J Diddy]

You are confusing correlation with causation. At close range, which most of the recent shootings have been, having a bulky weapon would hinder ones ability to get as close before opening up as a pistol would allow and be just as deadly.

[petegz28]

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?

No on magazine size limits
Big whoop on tracers
Most of the rest is not legal and/or not being pushed for.

Ask yourself this, why is DHS hoarding hollow point Ammo when even the military is not allowed to use it?

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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

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

I disagree. I can do as much, if not more damage, with 2 handguns and a few magazines than I could with a single assault rifle. Also... 2012 was an statistical anomaly with 7 such shootings. Since 1982, there have not been more than 4 such shootings in any one year.

No comment on the image from an anti-gun site that disputed your "assault weapons are the most often used gun in mass shootings" statement? It is a pretty large part of your argument and it had the doors blown off it with the statistics presented by Mother Jones.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

If somebody is no longer law abiding, but they had firearms prior to breaking the law, they keep those weapons, do they not?



I could live with a lot of that.

You can live without any of it to.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

No it's not. Check out that 130 mph video in the lounge.

Just because they don't have speed regulators doesn't mean that cars aren't heavily regulated. You need to prove you know the rules before you can get a learner's permit; you need to take a test before you get a driver's license; you need insurance; you need visible plates and registration, renewed every year or two; in many states you need annual inspections and must pay personal property tax; you have speed limits and traffic laws galore; you can get arrested and thrown in prison if you misuse them; and the government keeps a master list of every driver, every owner, and the status, location, and legality of every automobile everywhere.

The whole tactic of comparing guns to cars is horrendously fallacious and just drags anyone using it away from making any sense. They have drastically different histories, uses, and characteristics to the point where it's comic folly to try and say the rules that apply to one should apply to the other.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Just because they don't have speed regulators doesn't mean that cars aren't heavily regulated. You need to prove you know the rules before you can get a learner's permit; you need to take a test before you get a driver's license; you need insurance; you need visible plates and registration, renewed every year or two; in many states you need annual inspections and must pay personal property tax; you have speed limits and traffic laws galore; you can get arrested and thrown in prison if you misuse them; and the government keeps a master list of every driver, every owner, and the status, location, and legality of every automobile everywhere.

The whole tactic of comparing guns to cars is horrendously fallacious and just drags anyone using it away from making any sense. They have drastically different histories, uses, and characteristics to the point where it's comic folly to try and say the rules that apply to one should apply to the other.

I can own as many cars as I want, of any type and capability, they are only subject to regulation if I want to use them on public property.