Opinion Should they ban assault weapons?

[livingdeadmoose]

I'm just using the logic to argue that you came up with in this thread.

No, there really is no category of weapons called assault weapons. It’s a made up term. People who don’t know shit about firearms created it and still use it.

 

[Rational Poster]

No, there really is no category of weapons called assault weapons. It’s a made up term. People who don’t know shit about firearms created it and still use it.

All terms are made up terms though.

In this instance, we made up the term assault weapon or assault rifle to signify a firearm that has a feature or features designed for combat, like higher rate of rife, rapid reloading, and ergonomics for combat related maneuvers(Pistol grips, types of stocks, etc).

This is just bullshit obfuscation buy you gun nerds. You'd rather argue over semantics than actual problems and solutions.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

All terms are made up terms though.

In this instance, we made up the term assault weapon or assault rifle to signify a firearm that has a feature or features designed for combat, like higher rate of rife, rapid reloading, and ergonomics for combat related maneuvers(Pistol grips, types of stocks, etc).

This is just bullshit obfuscation buy you gun nerds. You'd rather argue over semantics than actual problems and solutions.

An AR-15 does not have a faster rate of fire than a Ruger mini-14, a traditional hunting rifle. Nor does it function any differently. All differences are purely cosmetic. Such as pistol grips, collapsible butt stocks, and flash suppressors.

And yes, an AR may be geared towards combat and less so for hunting (although I know a lot of people who use it for hog hunting and small game), but our 2A rights were built around the rights of citizens to have weapons for combat, not just hunting.

And this stuff isn’t semantics. If you want to be taken seriously in a gun debate, don’t throw around terms that automatically label you as someone who doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about

 

[jlagman]

All terms are made up terms though.

In this instance, we made up the term assault weapon or assault rifle to signify a firearm that has a feature or features designed for combat, like higher rate of rife, rapid reloading, and ergonomics for combat related maneuvers(Pistol grips, types of stocks, etc).

This is just bullshit obfuscation buy you gun nerds. You'd rather argue over semantics than actual problems and solutions.

Which "actual problems" are you talking about? Because in actuality, crimes which involve ALL rifles make up a single digit percentage of gun crime in the US. So if that's the case, why focus on a specific model that's responsible for a near statistically insignificant amount of gun crime?

 

[Happy Man]

I understand that there are millions of guns, and plenty of ammo, but that's not enough to win a war of survival against a determined and better equipped adversary with supreme logistics control and relatively unlimited resources.

Just ask the Confederates how that worked and they actually had some foreign support.

Do you think anyone is going to send you care packages like the Brits did?

Where to even start? Determined? Those defending have always been more determined than those attacking. Put it this way, the will to murder others will always be less than the will to defend and survive. Always has been, always will be. Secondly, supreme logistics control? Have you seen our problems today in Afghanistan trying to keep valley roads, not to mention major highways secure? We haven't been able to. Lastly, no nation has unlimited resources. Trying to murder tens of millions of armed resisting people has never been possible, and a nation will literally go bankrupt trying. You have some misplaced fantasies

 

[Rational Poster]

Where to even start? Determined? Those defending have always been more determined than those attacking. Put it this way, the will to murder others will always be less than the will to defend and survive. Always has been, always will be. Secondly, supreme logistics control? Have you seen our problems today in Afghanistan trying to keep valley roads, not to mention major highways secure? We haven't been able to. Lastly, no nation has unlimited resources. Trying to murder tens of millions of armed resisting people has never been possible, and a nation will literally go bankrupt trying. You have some misplaced fantasies

 

[Rational Poster]

Which "actual problems" are you talking about? Because in actuality, crimes which involve ALL rifles make up a single digit percentage of gun crime in the US. So if that's the case, why focus on a specific model that's responsible for a near statistically insignificant amount of gun crime?

So we agree, limits should be placed on all firearms because they're all universally deadly.

Great.

 

[Happy Man]

That guy didn't even respond. Just some hot girl laughing. What's that noise. Too much?

 

[Rational Poster]

An AR-15 does not have a faster rate of fire than a Ruger mini-14, a traditional hunting rifle. Nor does it function any differently. All differences are purely cosmetic. Such as pistol grips, collapsible butt stocks, and flash suppressors.

And yes, an AR may be geared towards combat and less so for hunting (although I know a lot of people who use it for hog hunting and small game), but our 2A rights were built around the rights of citizens to have weapons for combat, not just hunting.

And this stuff isn’t semantics. If you want to be taken seriously in a gun debate, don’t throw around terms that automatically label you as someone who doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about

It semantics, we both know what we're talking about it. You just want to gripe over specific word usage that doesn't change the argument one way or the other.

 

[Rational Poster]

That guy didn't even respond. Just some hot girl laughing. What's that noise. Too much?

That's my way of saying your posts sucks and you should go back to lurking.

 

[jlagman]

So we agree, limits should be placed on all firearms because they're all universally deadly.

Great.

Limits already exist.

 

[Whippy McGee]

A Mini-14 vs. AR-15 ..... "assault weapon" is a term for ignorant people.

 

[tramendous]

That cache works both ways my friend. I'd like to also point you to the fact that, the individual has more combat power available to him now than ever before in history. The rate at which insurgencies are successful (less equipped and poorly trained with respect to our population) has increased is reflective of that.

The reason why insurgencies are more successful now is because mass extermination is not really an option. There were insurgencies all the time in the past. They just got wiped out usually by tactics that would be considered illegal today. You also have to understand that the killing power of governments has increased much more in relation to the self defence ability of the citizen. Citizens with small arms would just be a nuisance to the US government. Its elements of the military siding with rebels that would be the major threat.

 

[Rational Poster]

Limits already exist.

So?

Couldn't we at least agree to some standard for every state?

 

[jlagman]

So?

Couldn't we at least agree to some standard for every state?

Offer a horse to trade and we'll see.

 

[Rational Poster]

People who make these claims about small arms doing nothing see to envision some random people here and there trying to pick off soldiers. They never seem to consider regional sympathies (i.e. whole towns or states not cooperating), non-federal government arms/forces, and how disruptive sabotage can be.

I think when this argument is made the popular insurgencies that are always "championed" as a reason to not talk about doing anything about gun laws is that every one of those popular insurgencies were propped up by a major first world military industrial complex, sometimes even multiple at the same time.

The citizens that cling to their bump stocks will find themselves in the minority fast.

 

[jlagman]

I think when this argument is made the popular insurgencies that are always "championed" as a reason to not talk about doing anything about gun laws is that every one of those popular insurgencies were propped up by a major first world military industrial complex, sometimes even multiple at the same time.

The citizens that cling to their bump stocks will find themselves in the minority fast.

Most serious shooter don't give a fuck about bump stocks anyways because they're gimmicks.

 

[Rational Poster]

Most serious shooter don't give a fuck about bump stocks anyways because they're gimmicks.

Then why do we have to talk about civil war every time someone talks about gun laws?

Like chill out dudes.

 

[jlagman]

Then why do we have to talk about civil war every time someone talks about gun laws?

Like chill out dudes.

Probably because there's usually some desperate plea that goes something like, "Your AR-47 won't do you any good rebelling against the US military...so you might as well let us ban them."

 

[Rational Poster]

Probably because there's usually some desperate plea that goes something like, "Your AR-47 won't do you any good rebelling against the US military...so you might as well let us ban them."

It's more like, "Our ancestors already willingly forfeited the right to maintain an arsenal with any parity to the military or even the police force so why are you so obtuse when it comes to coming up with an intelligent set of gun laws that make sense for the current year"