Ban Assault Weapons

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

There is a waiting period, and a background check. Two different things. He did not want to go through both of those things.
 
This is a technical site, so let's get our terms straight.

There is no such term as "assault weapon," except in the mouths of those who want to eliminate private ownership of firearms. An "assault rifle" is one that is capable of selective fire, either one shot per trigger pull or multiple.

An "assault <i forget which term was used>" as defined in the ban was defined as something that looked scary. Specifically, it had more than two of a certain list of features all but one of which had no effect on its mass lethality. That one was, if I remember correctly, a detachable magazine.

Now that we have that straight, we can all talk the same language. Private citizens do not own assault rifles; since these are capable of full-automatic fire, they are strictly controlled. More definitions: Full automatic: fires more than one round per trigger pull, tightly controlled. Semi-automatic: fires one round per trigger pull, then puts another in the chamber.

Ready to speak accurately? OK. Private citizens do not need assault rifles or any other fully-automatic weapons. The proposed legislation will ban weapons because they look scary; that makes me believe that they are a waste of ink.

Reducing the number of shots that a given person can fire in one minute will either reduce the number of people killed in a crazed attack or make the crazed attack longer. Or make the crazy bring a larger number of loaded guns. All that sarcasm aside, limiting the number of shots that can be fired in a minute seems likely to reduce casualties in a future horror, but not the likelihood of said horror.

Semi-automatic weapons and clips are a straw man argument. I can reload a revolver pretty darn quickly with speedloaders, not much slower than I could reload a semi-automatic. Limits on clip capacity sound, at first hearing, like a practical idea. Nobody needs eleven shots to hunt deer, and if a theoretical shooter in a self-defense situation needs that many rounds, he or she will probably lose. Three, yes. Six, possibly. More, you've probably lost.

Finally, reducing the number of available firearms and bullets will not eliminate these tragedies. Nothing can make anything one hundred percent safe. People have died choking from drinking a glass of water. Water is not banned. Children, God help us, are run over by cars driven by careful and responsible adults in rare accidents, but cars are not banned. The argument that tighter gun control will "eliminate" these events is bogus. Only removing all firearms from the country could do that. If only police have guns, then only insane relatives of police will take family guns and kill people.

So: I believe that such tragedies are unimaginably horrible, and if giving up my guns would guarantee that it would never happen again I would go get a whole bunch and turn them in. If banning guns in the state of New York would guarantee that it would never happen again, I'd vote for that. But in the real world, nothing is one hundred percent safe.

And I have yet to see this conversation held in a form other than two ideologies shouting at each other, one assuming that stricter control will lead to all private guns being removed (although HCI would love that) and one assuming that if more than two private citizens in the country are allowed firearms then there will be tragedies. Safety is a continuum, with a definite end on one side (jumping off the Empire State Building will lead to death), but the other side is like absolute zero. Closer and close at more and more expense, but you can't get there.

Let us remember the (approximate) words of Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But please, Marv, stick with real words and real terms. "Assault Weapon" is not a technical term, it's like calling abortion "baby murder." Emotionally laden, without meaning, and hampering communication.
 

Many simple pistols or rifles are semi-automatic. A revolver can be fired as quickly as a semi-automatic. The only differences are is that one has a scary word in it and the very real issue that large capacity clips can be made for semi-automatic pistols. There are bolt rifles that can take larger clips too.

As I said above, the entire national discussion has been poisoned by replacing technical accuracy with emotionally laden scarewords.
 
This a matter of semantics what i am stating is guns period should be outlawed in homes period and also in what this idiot Lapierre said have guns in schools to protect our students.naturally he is making tons of money off the gun manufacturers and fools who buy these guns.You want guns use them for hunting only that is it.
 

You calling me a fool Marv?
How are you supposed to keep guns out of gun free zones? And how can you keep criminals from having guns, knowing that they get them illegally anyways and do not follow laws.
What would be your idea to keep guns out of gun free zones? Obviously not protecting them has worked terribly.
And how would citizens be safe when criminals have guns ILLEGALLY and we do not? Are you going to count on the police to arrive in seconds?
 

What about lever action, and pump action. How are we supposed to protect ourselves with bolt action guns when criminals can get any guns they want?

An all out handgun ban. That will never happen (hopefully). When that happens gangs and criminals will be much quicker to steal from that unprotected lady walking down the street. USA is HUGE. There is not enough armed cops to protect all of America. This makes us much different from all of Europe. That is one reason why banning guns will not work and hurt citizens more then it will make a dent in crime.

I do not like these polls. They do not explain guns enough for people to make an educated decision. They are more so based on the feelings of the day. Most people will feel this way right now.
 
I didn't say it would be easy getting them off the streets but you have got to start somewhere ... sometime.

News update ... the wild west doesn't fit with modern society.

Your country is becoming more lawless every day.



 

Now is that because of our laws or our society?
Something tells me Lapierre isn't really off his rocker.
 
Way back in the day:
One on one duel, pistols at ten paces, considered very socialably the norm, many deaths/injuries, honor was retained.
Back in the day:
One on one, fists only, often friendships after said brawls.
Honor retained
Today:
As many as seen fit against as little as one, anything goes, using whatever, wheres the honor?
I believe this transcends down into society, as in the past, this was considered honorable treatment back then, and just doing the right thing let you "back in", no harm no foul, unless tragedy struck.
So, once again, we get to a mans heart, his current mindset, his belief system, and not the tools in which something would happen.
Lets look outside those norms.
Kicking, biting, more than one on one would get you tarred and feathered out of town and disgraced permanantly in the old days, where we were of course, by todays standards so barbarian, and sounds like the argument being made, about to be made, or even owned in true belief by many.
I beg to differ
 
There has to be a solution to this asap or else these killings will go on and on .
 

And a ban on all weapons is the solution? Really Marv?

And you guys think Lapierre is off his rocker for saying society is screwed up...
 

I have a better proposal. What Bloomberg did with soda was inefficient. What is stopping people from ordering 2 16 ounces? I would actually tax the crap out of it. Taxation reduces consumption of the targeted good.
 

You think it will do the same when it comes to a right?
 
This is no joke it is a very serious issue.Start with gun control, drugs, and social issues especially mental health problems we are confronted with in today's society.Our country is so high up in crimes it is not funny compared to other countries especially in Europe.
 

Really Marv???
 
Weve been going against crime from the beginning.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/index.html
War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure

So, no joke, thats alot of our monies spent, and some want more.
Thats just for drugs, not counting theft, burgluries, arson etc etc

A particular tool and use of it, an activity requiring a certain tool can be regulated, which it is.
Stopping drug usage, illegal usage is not regulated other than for legalized drugs, where we find:
With the amount on the market and the relative ease of obtaining them, it is no wonder prescription drug abuse is on the rise. Abuse of prescription drugs has increased over 400% since 1998. Currently, over 6 million Americans use prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons.

http://www.recoverycorps.org/addiction/prescriptiondrugs/abuse-trends/

So, with deaths incurred:
Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show
Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918

Using this ideology, we must also ban drugs, both legal and illegal.

Again, its the opportunity of a abuser or criminal, their intent, and not the objct, but the objective.
 


Not much chance of that when your itching to open up on your neighbours with that AR15 you have there OMG.

Its only a matter of time when you have one of those dragonslayers lying around.

You probably should get a bazooka just in case they have an armoured car ... maybe some grenades as well.

Start wearing your kevlar jacket when your out too.

Have a second weapon handy in case of a jam ... a Glock or a Uzi for close quarter work.

Better check under the bed ...

Maybe consider buying a larger property outside of the city and putting barbed wire around it and armed guards?

Congratulations ... now your in South Africa.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom