The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Current Events Latest news, current events, and headlines from around the world


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 19th, 2013, 04:48 PM   #1
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

why a ban on assault weapons doesn't make things safer

First what is an assault weapon? A fire arm that has the following features

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Aside from the grenade launcher this is a completely cosmetic designation. There is little sense in banning a rifle with a folding stock, because you can kill someone just as dead if the gun had a fixed stock. Pistol grip? I don't know to many rifles that don't have a pistol grip, and the gun can still kill you just as dead if it had a wrist grip. A bayonet mount is just a tying on the end of the gun, manufacturers will just call it something else, but this doesn't matter because the times an "assault" weapon was used in murder they didn't use the bayonet. A flash suppressor is just a thing on the end of the barrel, it doesn't make the gun more accurate or deadly. The grenade launcher, you can't really get grenades for it.

So making it a crime to own a gun with the above features isn't about making things safe, just eroding liberty. My reasoning is this, a gun with a collapsible stock isn't more deadly, so removing that option as well as the others just means that or liberties to own such a fire arm are being taken away.

So an Assault rifle, pistol, or shot gun is just scary looking.


Second statistics on gun crimes should be considered, not just emotional back lash over a small number of isolated incidents.

In 2010 there were 358 deaths caused by rifle fire, remember an AR 15 is a rifle. 6009 were involving pistols. Keep in mind not all rifles are assault rifles, meaning they can be hunting rifles and shotguns.

Of the 30,470 fire arm related deaths in 2010 19,392 or 63.6% were suicide. 11,078 or 34.6% were homicide.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_v..._United_States

So if this was about making things safer we would be talking about pistols, in the .380, .38, .357, .25, .22, and 9mm caliber being that they are the most often used in gun crime. The buzz word "assault weapon" is just sensationalist rhetoric to frighten uninformed or uneducated people. And the ban is really just to get a foot in the door in order to pursue a UK gun policy.

Third, high capacity magazines. One may ask, "why do you need more than # bullets?" The answer is simple, tactical advantage. I carry a fire arm to give me a tactical advantage over potential unarmed would be assailants. I load it with a17 round magazine, and two seventeen round magazines for reload. I have been in a fire fight, it isn't tactically wise to stand out in the open and properly aim. Some times you are shooting from behind cover and can't aim.

I personally prefer a shotgun in a fire fight because it is a short range firearm, with triple ought buck shot in a two and a half inch cartage its like firing 9 9mm at the target, further more the simple chunk chunk of the pump action is normally enough to take the fight right out of someone with out hurting or killing them, always a plus. However shot guns cannot be concealed our easily made ready.

As someone who has pointed a gun at someone, just that alone bothered me. I was just a finer twitch away from taking the life of a son, husband, father, uncle, cousin, even though my life was in as much risk as his, and that I would be justified in firing, I am so relieved I didn't have to. That being said I would like to know that I can do that again if I needed to.

I have spoken to officers, civilians, and service men that have killed people they all seem to not be unaffected by it.

Last edited by clax; January 19th, 2013 at 05:17 PM.
clax is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 05:25 PM   #2
Retired
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,775

So...there is such a thing...progress
tecoyah is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 05:33 PM   #3
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
So...there is such a thing...progress
Its just rhetoric. The phrase "assault weapon" is only meant to scare people who don't know any better.

Of course there is a such thing as an assault weapon, a weapon used in assault, it can be a car, a rock, a knife, a gun, or a fist.

If it isn't used in assault than it isn't an assault weapon.
clax is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 05:54 PM   #4
Retired
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,775

Until we can agree the military (the professionals in this), call certain guns assault weapons....this is a dead end thread.

State of California
Office of the Attorney General
Sacramento, California
The purpose of this guide is to assist peace officers, firearms dealers, and the general public in the identification of assault
weapons and to promote the better understanding of some of the more significant recently enacted legislation.
This booklet may be reproduced without permission for noncommercial purposes, downloaded from the Firearms
Division website at www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/, or purchased from the Firearms Division for $2 per copy at the
address below.


http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd...ms/awguide.pdf

http://publicintelligence.net/israel...rators-manual/
tecoyah is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 06:12 PM   #5
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Until we can agree the military (the professionals in this), call certain guns assault weapons....this is a dead end thread.
For the sake of argument, okay. The military calls certain guns assault weapons. This has absolutely nothing to do with my thread.
clax is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 06:20 PM   #6
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Until we can agree the military (the professionals in this), call certain guns assault weapons....this is a dead end thread.

State of California
Office of the Attorney General
Sacramento, California
The purpose of this guide is to assist peace officers, firearms dealers, and the general public in the identification of assault
weapons and to promote the better understanding of some of the more significant recently enacted legislation.
This booklet may be reproduced without permission for noncommercial purposes, downloaded from the Firearms
Division website at www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/, or purchased from the Firearms Division for $2 per copy at the
address below.


http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd...ms/awguide.pdf

http://publicintelligence.net/israel...rators-manual/
This doesn't mean banning them, what ever designation you like to use, will make the world safer. So my op was not addressed
clax is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 06:46 PM   #7
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

This is a pistol grip stock.
http://www.gun-parts.com/stocks/Boito%2012-12.jpg
Any gun with this is an assault weapon.

This is a callapsible stock
http://assets.academy.com/mgen/64/10...jpg?is=500,500

This is a flash suppressor
http://vtsupply.com/images/487530.jpg
It just fits on the muzzle of the barrel.

This is a bayonet connector.
http://sjhardware.com/store/modules/...eb)%20(32).jpg

None of these things make a gun more deadly, they are just additions. The bullet stool exits the barrel at the same speed. So this discussion on banning these things is really about the stripping of liberties. A house clamp a little bit of iron on the end and the shape of the wood or furniture really makes a gun more geared for assault? That's like saying putting low profile tires on your car makes you more prone to speed.
clax is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 07:10 PM   #8
Retired
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,775

Okay....enough.

I do not agree that by eliminating the tools used, you do not lessen the chance of the deed.

If you do not have a hammer..you will sink fewer nails.
tecoyah is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 07:12 PM   #9
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Okay....enough.

I do not agree that by eliminating the tools used, you do not lessen the chance of the deed.

If you do not have a hammer..you will sink fewer nails.
I agree, so why ban "assault weapons" and nothing else?

to use you metaphor, a hammer with a purple handle isn't more apt to drive nails than any other. Banning "assault weapons" is like banning purple hammers to stop people from driving nails.

Last edited by clax; January 19th, 2013 at 07:16 PM.
clax is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 07:15 PM   #10
Retired
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,775

Quote:
Originally Posted by clax View Post
I agree, so why ban "assault weapons" and nothing else?

If you do not have an air hammer...you will sink fewer nails yet.


Besides...banning guns would be bad for the 2nd.
tecoyah is offline  
Old January 20th, 2013, 01:31 AM   #11
Senator
 
Cerise's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: England
Posts: 536

[QUOTE=clax;39180]I agree, so why ban "assault weapons" and nothing else?

to use you metaphor, a hammer with a purple handle isn't more apt to drive nails than any other. Banning "assault weapons" is like banning purple hammers to stop people from driving nails.[/QUOTE

As a step in the right direction?
Cerise is offline  
Old January 20th, 2013, 04:57 AM   #12
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

[

As a step in the right direction?[/QUOTE]

I see it as a step toward eliminating the constitution. And making the people powerless. To me it is a step in the wrong direction
clax is offline  
Old January 20th, 2013, 11:14 AM   #13
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by clax View Post
I see it as a step toward eliminating the constitution. And making the people powerless. To me it is a step in the wrong direction
Problem is a large part of the country disagrees with you. And to date, apparently the courts seem to also and in the end, they decide.
myp is offline  
Old January 20th, 2013, 03:05 PM   #14
Senator
 
Cerise's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: England
Posts: 536

Quote:
Originally Posted by clax View Post

As a step in the right direction?
I see it as a step toward eliminating the constitution. And making the people powerless. To me it is a step in the wrong direction[/QUOTE]

I know and we agree to disagree without ill feeling I just liked your choice of words because they could be taken either way.
Cerise is offline  
Old January 21st, 2013, 03:36 AM   #15
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Problem is a large part of the country disagrees with you. And to date, apparently the courts seem to also and in the end, they decide.
A larger part agrees with me, and so does the constitution.
clax is offline  
Old January 21st, 2013, 03:39 AM   #16
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerise View Post
I know and we agree to disagree without ill feeling I just liked your choice of words because they could be taken either way.
Glad to see that we can agree to disagree, its refreshing to see that
clax is offline  
Old January 21st, 2013, 05:33 AM   #17
Retired
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,775

Quote:
Originally Posted by clax View Post
A larger part agrees with me, and so does the constitution.

It seems you may be mistaken, according to the data:

"National public opinion polls show majority support for all three measures. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that 85 percent support for background checks, 55 percent support a ban on assault weapons, and 54 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines"
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Deco...ol-fight-video

Your opinion on the undermining of the constitution also seems a bit weak, as there is no attempt being made to remove your right to have a gun.
tecoyah is offline  
Old January 21st, 2013, 06:32 AM   #18
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post

[/I] Your opinion on the undermining of the constitution also seems a bit weak, as there is no attempt being made to remove your right to have a gun.
Yes they are attempting to take away OUR rights to own guns, based on some pointless features that make no difference.

So if I take an AR 15 and saw the suppressor off, put a standard wrist grip stick on it, grind off the bayonet attachment and blew away an elementary school I wouldn't have committed as violent of an act as the sandy hook guy did? It wouldn't be an assault weapon in that case so it would then be safer to unload at an elementary school?

I am not trying to be obtuse but this ban on rifles referred to as "assault weapons" wool not do anything. Because people will just grind off bayonet adapters and suppressors, attach a non pistol grip stock and its the same gun, still capable of firing the exact same cartage at exactly the same speed and accuracy. This ban only limits out ability to by guns with such features stripping rights away.

I don't understand this obsession about some gadget at the end of the barrel and a stock option.

You said something about driving less nails with an air gun, but you didn't do anything about the nail gun but change the grips.

Please help me understand
clax is offline  
Old January 21st, 2013, 07:35 AM   #19
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by clax View Post
A larger part agrees with me, and so does the constitution.
Well it is arguable how many people agree with you, but it doesn't matter. It is about what gets passed (in some states, more people certainly favor gun control and in others they don't) and what is Constitutional. You can keep whining about it here, but the challenges in the courts have provided fruitless thus far when it comes to calling assault weapons bans unconstitutional. And as per the Constitution, it is up for the courts to decide when one party sees something as unconstitutional and another does not and it goes to court.

You can't say you follow the Constitution if you don't want to follow it when it comes settling a disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means
myp is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2013, 03:09 AM   #20
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 1,975

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Well it is arguable how many people agree with you, but it doesn't matter. It is about what gets passed (in some states, more people certainly favor gun control and in others they don't) and what is Constitutional. You can keep whining about it here, but the challenges in the courts have provided fruitless thus far when it comes to calling assault weapons bans unconstitutional. And as per the Constitution, it is up for the courts to decide when one party sees something as unconstitutional and another does not and it goes to court.

You can't say you follow the Constitution if you don't want to follow it when it comes settling a disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means
It means what it says, there is no hidden cryptic meaning.

I am not whining I am trying to expose how pointless and meaningless an assault weapons ban is.

A few minuets at a bench grinder and removing a few screws will turn any "assault weapon" into a hunting rifle. If you load a magazine and go to a school and blow away some kids it must mean they just deserved to die because the gun the killer used didn't have a bayonet attachment or a callapsable stock on it.

Its completely absurd. The gun used in sandy hook wasn't deadly because of some silly bits of metal on it. It was the nut case wilding it. If it was a mossberg 500 that he used then this discussion would be a different discussion.

Further more it isn't a whine, its a warning. I will fight for my rights to my death

The right of the people to bear and keep arms must not be infringed, if the court infringes on these rights it has broken the law.

The court must obey the constitution not usurp the entire checks and balances system to issue commands from the bench. They must be over thrown if they don't obey the only rule they must obey.

Last edited by clax; January 22nd, 2013 at 03:14 AM.
clax is offline  
Closed Thread

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Tags
assault , ban , make , safer , things , weapons



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democrats revealing the Assault Weapons Ban today. chris7375 Government and Politics 183 February 11th, 2013 07:44 PM
Feinstein to display different kinds of Assault Weapons. chris7375 Government and Politics 0 January 24th, 2013 08:18 AM
Obama to propose assault weapons ban, better background checks myp Current Events 74 January 22nd, 2013 06:20 PM
Iran!! Says enough doesn't it?? amirex111 Current Events 7 June 18th, 2012 12:27 PM
Israel questioned upon flotilla assault myp Current Events 17 June 24th, 2010 08:35 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.