What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[calicoug]

Apples and oranges, cali. Apples and oranges. I don't give a rat's ass about what gun bans have done in other nations. American culture is unique, it always has been and likely always will be. There was no wild west in any other nation, not even down under.

I'll agree on the "guns are fun" argument, as it lacks substance, but mentioning Friday in the same breath as new gun control legislation does frame the debate in the way I suggested.

You are being silly. If we didn't have mass killings, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But we are having this conversation. Because there are mass killings. Eliminating reference to those killings in the conversation is about like avoiding all mention of 9/11 when discussing terrorism.

If you think the existence of mass killings makes people angry, well, you are right. I would hope that would be true no matter what side of the debate you are on.

The question I asked was about the usefulness of assault weapons. Do you disagree they are used for mass killings? I assume you live in reality so I assume you don't disagree. Okay- so we have listed one very awful use. So is there a benefit we get from these guns that outweighs the harm they can inflict? Well, we have from all the proponents of guns on here that 1) they are fun; 2) they could be used to fight a tyrannical government if that evil government ever decides to wipe us out; and 3) there are some big hogs in Texas that are easier to kill with an assault weapon.

The analysis above isn't "emotional." Those are the reasons people are giving. Now run that same exercise for cars, fertilizer, planes and all the other things people here have said are just like guns.

I am waiting for someone to tell me how the benefits for these guns outweighs the harm. I don't even think it is close the harm outweighs the benefit.

After that step, we can conclude these would be a good target for much stronger regulation/ban. We can talk about what that regulation should look like (and what legal and constitutional limitations may apply to such regulation) but people are still stuck in step 1 without even realizing it.

[calicoug]

Churches and schools are ALL patrolled by police. Just because they are rarely walking the halls is besides the point. And it's the same for an Army base. While the police are there, they're patrolling an area just like in any other city.

You're playing logical games due to the fact that the "gun free zone" on an Army installation is larger, and hence the police patrolling are within the actual zone itself. Nevermind that most of the buildings around which they're patrolling are vacant of any actual police. The police are in cars just like in any other city.

I don't really care that it was a two minute response time. How many people died? So the response time is a moot point. The end result--the bottom line--is all I really care about.

You paint a pretty poor picture of people's ability to respond under stress and difficult situations. The people who care enough to carry a concealed gun will have thought through shoot/no-shoot scenarios. You don't have to have military or law enforcement training to be able to show good judgement. How many people died without guns? I have no doubt that had someone been there with a gun they could have mitigated the loss of lives even with friendly fire, though I don't think that would have happened. Can mistakes be made? Of course. Even police officers make mistakes sometimes. But how many lives do they save? To say that more guns won't mitigate loss of lives and mass casualties just denies logic and history.

I paint a realistic picture. You are sitting in a theater. It is filled with smoke. People are screaming and being shot. You look over and see someone with a gun. Do you shoot?

[SoonerCoug]

Sooner would make a great neighbor.

I live right next to a project in a very criminal city. We live great and feel perfectly safe.

Most gun-toting maniacs live in the suburbs where it's super safe. I think it is pretty much insane to think that you need a gun for safety at home. I installed an alarm with motion-detecting security cameras with DVR, and I feel perfectly safe with that.

Remind me how many of these mass shootings happened in a big city versus in a nice little suburb. It's the safe suburbs where these assault weapons are kept. You think Lanza's mom needed those guns for safety in Newtown?

[UtahDan]

You are being silly. If we didn't have mass killings, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But we are having this conversation. Because there are mass killings. Eliminating reference to those killings in the conversation is about like avoiding all mention of 9/11 when discussing terrorism.

If you think the existence of mass killings makes people angry, well, you are right. I would hope that would be true no matter what side of the debate you are on.

The question I asked was about the usefulness of assault weapons. Do you disagree they are used for mass killings? I assume you live in reality so I assume you don't disagree. Okay- so we have listed one very awful use. So is there a benefit we get from these guns that outweighs the harm they can inflict? Well, we have from all the proponents of guns on here that 1) they are fun; 2) they could be used to fight a tyrannical government if that evil government ever decides to wipe us out; and 3) there are some big hogs in Texas that are easier to kill with an assault weapon.

The analysis above isn't "emotional." Those are the reasons people are giving. Now run that same exercise for cars, fertilizer, planes and all the other things people here have said are just like guns.

I am waiting for someone to tell me how the benefits for these guns outweighs the harm. I don't even think it is close the harm outweighs the benefit.

After that step, we can conclude these would be a good target for much stronger regulation/ban. We can talk about what that regulation should look like (and what legal and constitutional limitations may apply to such regulation) but people are still stuck in step 1 without even realizing it.

I basically agree with this, all except being snarky to Pel. I never agree with that. I think that a first step in the analysis is figuring out the cost/benefit. Yes, there is still a discussion of rights, practicality, etc. to be had. But a first step is identifying what is at stake on each side. Although, I don't think that drawing the line at assault weapons is necessarily the right place. Semi-automatic makes a lot more sense to me.

And I agree that the reason for doing that analysis is because it then lays the groundwork for asking if there are any reasonable, practical limitations that might work. Maybe not. But I think you have to figure that out first. To me, resisting even talking about an additional limitation is a lot like pro-choicers (I count my self as being in that group) who don't even want to discuss putting limitations on late term abortion because they don't want to see that right eroded AT ALL. We are capable of finding reasonable compromises in our country and do it all the time (well, not on the budget).

[Uncle Ted]

I rarely participate in these gun rights debates because they are pointless. The second amendment isn't going anywhere.

And the only gun law that would make a significant difference would to be to create a police state (e.g. allow police to conduct random searches for guns without warrants which is what pretty much happens in Japan today). Even if we could totally shutdown the manufacturing of guns in the world it wouldn't stop guns getting into the hands of criminals. Folks with a some skills and some tools can still manufacture fairly good guns...

[YOUTUBE]FinRqCocwGE[/YOUTUBE]

[SCcoug]

which begs the question, what's an assault rifle?

please, don't answer.

Yep. That term has been repeatedly misused in this thread. As Surfah pointed out the AWB was a joke. The term assault weapon is awesome marketing by the anti gun folks.

[SoonerCoug]

And the only gun law that would make a significant difference would to be to create a police state (e.g. allow police to conduct random searches for guns without warrants which is what pretty much happens in Japan today). Even if we could totally shutdown the manufacturing of guns in the world it wouldn't stop guns getting into the hands of criminals. Folks with a some skills and some tools can still manufacture fairly good guns...

Love your arguments, Ted.

"You can't make a difference with gun laws unless we have a police state."

"These guns are good for shooting hogs."

"Guns will still get into the hands of criminals."

Face the facts: Adam Lanza's mom was a recreational gun owner. Adam Lanza was not a criminal--he was mentally ill. Adam Lanza took his mom's recreational guns and massacred children, and you don't think guns are part of the problem.

Would you stand in front of the surviving children from Sandy Hook and explain why you think guns should be legal--including the bushmaster?

[UtahDan]

By the way, how many of these mass shootings have been accomplished with a fully automatic weapon? Any?

[Surfah]

I basically agree with this, all except being snarky to Pel. I never agree with that. I think that a first step in the analysis is figuring out the cost/benefit. Yes, there is still a discussion of rights, practicality, etc. to be had. But a first step is identifying what is at stake on each side. Although, I don't think that drawing the line at assault weapons is necessarily the right place. Semi-automatic makes a lot more sense to me.

And I agree that the reason for doing that analysis is because it then lays the groundwork for asking if there are any reasonable, practical limitations that might work. Maybe not. But I think you have to figure that out first. To me, resisting even talking about an additional limitation is a lot like pro-choicers (I could my self as being in that group) who don't even want to discuss putting limitations on late term abortion because they don't want to see that right eroded AT ALL. We are capable of finding reasonable compromises in our country and do it all the time (well, not on the budget).

I can't ever foresee that line being drawn at semi-automatics.

[SCcoug]

Although, I don't think that drawing the line at assault weapons is necessarily the right place. Semi-automatic makes a lot more sense to me.
.

There is no way that could be legislated or enforced. That would outlaw pretty much every gun sold today unless they get cute with the definition of semiautomatic. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of those guns in the public already.

[Omaha 680]

Sooner and Cali:

I havene't seen either of you address the point made by Surfah, Ted, and myself that assault weapon is a term based mostly on appearance. We have told you we think guns like the Bushmaster should remain legal because there are many rifles and handguns that are just as deadly or moreso.

Please answer this question: are you in favor of banning all semiautomatic weapons including handguns? There many many mass shootings thag didn't use any weapons from the AWB and thw worst in american history (Virginia Tech) used two handguns.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[UtahDan]

I can't ever foresee that line being drawn at semi-automatics.

Because it's illogical, impractical or both? To be clear, the only line I am trying to draw us a conceptual one with things that can pump out a lot of ammo quickly on one side and things that can't on the other so I can think about the value of the first category.

[Omaha 680]

Because it's illogical, impractical or both? To be clear, the only line I am trying to draw us a conceptual one with things that can pump out a lot of ammo quickly on one side and things that can't on the other so I can think about the value of the first category.

Thank you for being consistent. I would like to see if Sooner and Cali agree with you.

I think a ban on Semiautomatics would be impractical.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[SoonerCoug]

Sooner and Cali:

I havene't seen either of you address the point made by Surfah, Ted, and myself that assault weapon is a term based mostly on appearance. We have told you we think guns like the Bushmaster should remain legal because there are many rifles and handguns that are just as deadly or moreso.

Please answer this question: are you in favor of banning all semiautomatic weapons including handguns? There many many mass shootings thag didn't use any weapons from the AWB and thw worst in american history (Virginia Tech) used two handguns.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yes, I want them banned. And I think people are absolutely insane for thinking they need these guns. All kinds of people all over the civilized world live perfectly normal lives without ever touching a gun. You probably all live in the suburbs anyway. Who do you think you're protecting your family from? People use these guns to commit suicide much more frequently than they are used for protection.

Stand up before the children of Sandy Hook and tell them how great guns are.

[Bo Diddley]

I paint a realistic picture. You are sitting in a theater. It is filled with smoke. People are screaming and being shot. You look over and see someone with a gun. Do you shoot?

I'll take that to mean you agree with everything else I said.