9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.

[Diablo]

(16-01-2013 05:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 05:02 PM)Diablo Wrote:  I heard about a very interesting idea that was being done in NY.

Background Checks to buy Ammo.

Almost no one is trying to take all the guns, and the ones that are
have almost no support. Guns are a necessity in some places in the US.

That is the most overplayed ridiculous argument ever. As if somehow if assault weapons were banned, the criminals would still have tons of them. Its utter nonsense. Almost all guns are purchased legally or stolen. If no one can buy them, then stealing them would be rather hard. That only leaves smuggling them from another country, and distributing them through a black market, but this is fairly difficult. This will of course drastically reduces the # floating around.

Please define 'assault weapon'.

I am sure there is some specific legal definition, but I am not a lawyer, so I don't know it.

"
Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. "

Wiki

Also, as previously stated, the # of rifles used in crimes in quite low for obvious reasons. Thus there would be almost no demand from the criminal population to purchase them.

[Chas]

(16-01-2013 05:18 PM)Diablo Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 05:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please define 'assault weapon'.

I am sure there is some specific legal definition, but I am not a lawyer, so I don't know it.

"
Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. "

Wiki

Also, as previously stated, the # of rifles used in crimes in quite low for obvious reasons. Thus there would be almost no demand from the criminal population to purchase them.

The point is that the only features in the description that have anything to do with how deadly a weapon is, are that it is semi-automatic and can have a large capacity magazine.
The rest is cosmetic, but the rest of it is what is targeted by the "assault weapon ban".
Many hunting or sport rifles are semi-automatic and have detachable magazines but are not called 'assault weapons'. They are equally deadly.

In fact, there are many hunting rifles that are far more deadly than 'assault weapons'.

The discussion about gun safety is simply on the wrong track, addressing things that are not important, not addressing things that are.

[Ape_Linkin]

While we're at it, let's ban hunting rifles. We might as well ban any gun that can be oufitted with a scope. Remember the D.C. snipers? IMO that's worse than a school shooting. It lasts longer and the targets were random.

Let's ban pistols too! They're way too easy to conceal, they can be modified into fully automatic, and you can get extended clips!

[Ape_Linkin]

@Diablo: So if assault weapons are banned, criminals are what, just going to turn them in?

Or maybe you suggest the gov't does door to door sweeps just to make sure? While they're at it they can check our papers, you know, to make sure we're not jews.

[Diablo]

Surely the supreme court could come up with some reasonable all encompassing definition for an assault weapon.


Why would you want to ban hunting rifles?
Pistols I could kind of understand, but there are valid self defense arguments for them.

Quote: @Diablo: So if assault weapons are banned, criminals are what, just going to turn them in?

Or
maybe you suggest the gov't does door to door sweeps just to make sure?
While they're at it they can check our papers, you know, to make sure
we're not jews.

First off, when I say ban. I mean ban the sell of such weapons, not confiscation. Most people are criminals, and the ones who do use their guns in illegal activities will eventually get caught, so a complete govt confiscation is pointless.

Second, as said previously, rifles aren't used by criminals very often.

Don't fall for NRA hysteria.

[Chas]

(16-01-2013 05:58 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Surely the supreme court could come up with some reasonable all encompassing definition for an assault weapon.

That is not the job of the Supreme Court.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by the anti-gun people.

Quote:To note; an "Assault Rifle" is a semi automatic rifle, no different mechanically, or more powerful than any other semi automatic rifle.
They do not shoot thousands of rounds a minute, they shoot once every time the trigger is pulled, just like any other semi automatic rifle.

As to the looks. We hear all about "features"; collapsing stocks, pistol grips, "clips" and bayonet lugs from those that want to ban them. These "features" are cosmetic.

Let me give you an analogy I like to use as an example of how those that oppose lawful firearms ownership like to vilify these rifles.

Imagine if we were to apply the same rhetoric to a Honda Accord.
It would go like this: "Here we have the 4 door family sedan, it's a very safe, good car, no issues here. But.. this two door coupe with the fancy wheels, fender flares and fancy lights, that's a highway assault vehicle, very dangerous, should be banned, nobody needs one of those"

It's as simple as that. A pistol grip and a bayonet lug does not make a rifle any more dangerous or more powerful. As to the collapsible stock, it changes the length of the rifle approximately 2 inches, it does not make a significant difference to anything unless you are short, in which case it makes the rifle much easier to shoot.

We also hear a lot about "weapon of choice" To note, there are approximately 100 million lawfully owned rifles in the United States, approximately 25% of which could be considered "Assault Rifles" depending on whose definition is used.

Of these 25 million approximately 1/2 are AR15 platform rifles, 70+% of which have sold since the AWB expired in 2004. Despite this huge sales boom, violent crime including homicides committed with firearms of ALL TYPES has gone DOWN every year for 2 decades. Homicides committed with rifles make up approximately 1% of total homicides nation wide. Simply put a new "Assault Weapons" Ban is in actuality a semi automatic rifle ban, which is exactly what those that oppose our Second Amendment freedom want.

[Ape_Linkin]

@Diablo: Not that I fall for anything they say, I just don't like the unarming of citizens.

And you are correct, criminals will eventually lose theirs, very slowly, but they will just steal more.

Point being, this will have no effect on the murder rate.

One of my only coservative views is the right to bear arms. As I previously posted, it won't affect me any way. I can't own a gun as the law stands now.

[Diablo]

(16-01-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 05:58 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Surely the supreme court could come up with some reasonable all encompassing definition for an assault weapon.

That is not the job of the Supreme Court.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by the anti-gun people.

Quote:To note; an "Assault Rifle" is a semi automatic rifle, no different mechanically, or more powerful than any other semi automatic rifle.
They do not shoot thousands of rounds a minute, they shoot once every time the trigger is pulled, just like any other semi automatic rifle.

As to the looks. We hear all about "features"; collapsing stocks, pistol grips, "clips" and bayonet lugs from those that want to ban them. These "features" are cosmetic.

Let me give you an analogy I like to use as an example of how those that oppose lawful firearms ownership like to vilify these rifles.

Imagine if we were to apply the same rhetoric to a Honda Accord.
It would go like this: "Here we have the 4 door family sedan, it's a very safe, good car, no issues here. But.. this two door coupe with the fancy wheels, fender flares and fancy lights, that's a highway assault vehicle, very dangerous, should be banned, nobody needs one of those"

It's as simple as that. A pistol grip and a bayonet lug does not make a rifle any more dangerous or more powerful. As to the collapsible stock, it changes the length of the rifle approximately 2 inches, it does not make a significant difference to anything unless you are short, in which case it makes the rifle much easier to shoot.

We also hear a lot about "weapon of choice" To note, there are approximately 100 million lawfully owned rifles in the United States, approximately 25% of which could be considered "Assault Rifles" depending on whose definition is used.

Of these 25 million approximately 1/2 are AR15 platform rifles, 70+% of which have sold since the AWB expired in 2004. Despite this huge sales boom, violent crime including homicides committed with firearms of ALL TYPES has gone DOWN every year for 2 decades. Homicides committed with rifles make up approximately 1% of total homicides nation wide. Simply put a new "Assault Weapons" Ban is in actuality a semi automatic rifle ban, which is exactly what those that oppose our Second Amendment freedom want.

Whose job is it then? Who writes legal definitions?

You said that a better definition was required. Unless you are merely arguing that it is impossible, which isn't true.

The problem with arguments like the above are they don't advocate action. They mock and strive for complete inaction. Its nothing but a red herring. Look at this silly gun-safety crazy over here that doesn't understand these cosmetic features, and forget about the discussion regarding gun safety.

[Chas]

(16-01-2013 06:14 PM)Ape_Linkin Wrote:  @Diablo: Not that I fall for anything they say, I just don't like the unarming of citizens.

And you are correct, criminals will eventually lose theirs, very slowly, but they will just steal more.

Point being, this will have no effect on the murder rate.

One of my only coservative views is the right to bear arms. As I previously posted, it won't affect me any way. I can't own a gun as the law stands now.

Why not?

[Ape_Linkin]

Virginia Tech shooting: 32 dead, 17 wounded. Weapons used? Pistols: 2 Assault Rifles: 0

Assault weapons are a scapegoat, nothing more than a cover up for our failures as a society.

There is no real merit behind the unarming of our citizens.