What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[Drunk Tank]

I find it illuminating that the examples people give of analogous objects are only analogous in the sense that they can kill. Don't forget they do also serve a very important purpose: travel.

So I ask again, what is the very important purpose served by assault weapons? So far we have people agreeing on "entertainment" (but arguing that is a bigger deal than I suggest) and fighting off tyranny.

I guess if I thought they really could be used to fight off tyranny I would be more impressed by that argument. But the fact that the tyrannical side also has fighter jets, missiles, tanks and other such weapons that render an assault rifle pretty useless is impossible to ignore. Not to mention that if fighting off tyranny was a really important issue to people, they would rationally be arguing either that they get fighter jets, tanks, etc or that the government not get them (and I don't hear either argument advanced anywhere).

Are there any reasons besides fun and believing assault weapons can stop tanks?

The real issue is semi-auto vs. single shot. I used to own a single shot .223 caliber rifle. Was it an assault rifle just because the caliber? It was a varmint hunting rifle. The semi-auto rifle is great for defense. One thing taught in many weapon training classes is that your handgun is used to fight your way to your rifles or shotgun. There is no comparison in the intimidation factor or stopping power.

[Omaha 680]

Drunk Tank is right on. The AWB had as much or more to do with gun appearance than functionality. The anti gun lobby invented the very effective term "assault weapon", but there isn't anything particularly special about them.

Fully automatic weapons should not be available to civilians. Perhaps we can also have a discussion about high capacity magazines. But beyond that, it makes no sense to ban specific guns unless you go after all semi-automatics inclucing handguns.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[byu71]

It is sad, but not because they "ruin it for gun owners." More because they kill people and decimate lives.

I don't have guns and they provide no fun for me, so yea I can live with banning them.

I don't drink either and am fine with banning alcohol, are you with me on this one too.

I am thinking that violent videio's and movies are also corruptive and are only useful as entertainment. We might want to go after those after we get rid of the guns and alcohol.

[Drunk Tank]

It is sad, but not because they "ruin it for gun owners." More because they kill people and decimate lives.

It is sad. I am not saying that these tragedies aren't sad. However, psychos will always be out there. If it is not a gun, it will be something else. Machete, axe, whatever (you can find examples of this recently in China). During the AWB, was there no mass shootings? If it was so great, why was it ever allowed to expire?

[DU Ute]

[Drunk Tank]

Drunk Tank is right on. The AWB had as much or more to do with gun appearance than functionality. The anti gun lobby invented the very effective term "assault weapon", but there isn't anything particularly special about them.

Fully automatic weapons should not be available to civilians. Perhaps we can also have a discussion about high capacity magazines. But beyond that, it makes no sense to ban specific guns unless you go after all semi-automatics inclucing handguns.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. Here in CA, we can't have silencers, full auto's or high cap magazines. They were all banned by CA's AWB. However, there was a grace period in which someone who had these weapons or items were given a chance to register them as assault weapons and then once registered were allowed to legally keep and use them. People who had high cap magazines prior to 2000, can keep and use them as well, as long as it is on a rifle not listed as an AW or on a registered AW.

[Uncle Ted]

Although I don't have an answer for Cali, the entertainment vs harm argument brought to mind alcohol too. I can't think of anything that alcohol consumption is good for except entertainment.

Just as prohibition didn't really work, I doubt a ban on assault weapons will cure the problem. I am open to listening to the discussion though.

It should be noted that alcohol kills far more people (about 80,000 to 100,000 each year in the US) than guns each year (about 30,000 including suicides). In fact, just drinking and driving kills more people (about 25,000) than gun related deaths (about 13,000) if you don't count suicides.

[Uncle Ted]

I find it illuminating that the examples people give of analogous objects are only analogous in the sense that they can kill. Don't forget they do also serve a very important purpose: travel.

But couldn't cars be replaced with public transportation?

So I ask again, what is the very important purpose served by assault weapons? So far we have people agreeing on "entertainment" (but arguing that is a bigger deal than I suggest) and fighting off tyranny.

I guess if I thought they really could be used to fight off tyranny I would be more impressed by that argument. But the fact that the tyrannical side also has fighter jets, missiles, tanks and other such weapons that render an assault rifle pretty useless is impossible to ignore. Not to mention that if fighting off tyranny was a really important issue to people, they would rationally be arguing either that they get fighter jets, tanks, etc or that the government not get them (and I don't hear either argument advanced anywhere).

Are there any reasons besides fun and believing assault weapons can stop tanks?

I take it you have never been wild hog hunting in Texas. These hogs are like mini tanks and will start charging if you don't make the first shot count.



Because these hogs are a huge pest problem (they do damage to the environment and agriculture) they can be hunted year around, day or night, and pretty much by any means.

http://taylor.ifas.ufl.edu/docs/Mari...Game/l1925.pdf

The next time you are in Texas I'll take you hog hunting. You can use my bolt action rifle since you are opposed to other types of weapons. Or you if are totally opposed to guns I have a selection of knives you can pick from.

[Uncle Ted]

Exactly. Here in CA, we can't have silencers, full auto's or high cap magazines. They were all banned by CA's AWB. However, there was a grace period in which someone who had these weapons or items were given a chance to register them as assault weapons and then once registered were allowed to legally keep and use them. People who had high cap magazines prior to 2000, can keep and use them as well, as long as it is on a rifle not listed as an AW or on a registered AW.

With the stricter gun laws in California one would think gun related crimes would be lower. Yet California leads the nation in gun related murders (total) and has a higher than average rate when you consider the total population. It even beats Texas (yet another boarder state if being on the southern boarder is suspected to have something to do with it). Of course, DC has very strict gun laws but has the highest rate of the nation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

[Uncle Ted]

This is the transcript of an interview I heard on NPR this evening, driving home from work.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167479...ult-weapon-ban

It seems Cali and liberals in general are barking up the wrong tree again according to Professor Daniel Webster, expert in firearm policy and gun violence prevention at Johns Hopkins University:

[...]

SIEGEL: The ban covered certain semiautomatic weapons, but not all. And it covered large-capacity magazines. That is magazines, I gather, of more than 10 rounds. First, very generally, did it work?

WEBSTER: It did not have a significant impact on overall rates of gun violence. The researchers who studied this could not define any detectable difference in the use, particularly of guns with large-capacity magazines, which are far more prevalent as it relates to this ban.

[...]

I don't personally own any guns that fall under the definition given in this interview, however, I am opposed to a ban on these types of weapons. Banning these weapons does nothing to solve the real problem....

Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools

Families throughout the nation mourn the horrific deaths of 26 people, including 20 young children, killed Friday during a Newtown, Conn., mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“It’s impossible to imagine the depths of despair and grief that the victims’ families are experiencing right now,” said Geoffrey J. Neale, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Our hearts go out to every one of them.”

In the immediate aftermath of news surrounding the shootings, pundits and politicians called for new restrictions on firearm ownership, exactly the opposite of the approach needed to combat tragic gun violence in schools.

“We've created a 'gun-free zone,' a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth," said R. Lee Wrights, vice-chair of the Libertarian Party. "We've given them an open killing field, and we've made the children of this country the victims."

Wrights pointed out that merely the knowledge that armed people will be present acts as a deterrent for would-be shooters.

"They're not going to walk into a police station, and why not? Because that's where the guns are," he said.

The Federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act prohibits carrying firearms on school grounds in most cases, effectively criminalizing the right to self-defense in places filled with the most vulnerable citizens. Without that federal prohibition, adults working at the school would have been free to defend themselves, very possibly saving the lives of many of the young children and adults who were slain in this horrific tragedy.

"We must stop blinding ourselves to the obvious: Most of these mass killings are happening at schools where self-defense is prohibited," said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Gun prohibition sets the stage for the slaughter of innocent children. We must repeal these anti-self-defense laws now to minimize the likelihood they will occur in the future and to the limit the damage done when they do."

Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.

* A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
* A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
* A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
* A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
* A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
* A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
* A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
For several years after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gun prohibitionists blocked pilots from carrying firearms. But after it became undeniable that guns are an essential line of defense against hijackers and other terrorists when the lives of innocent passengers are at stake, Congress finally passed legislation allowing it.

It's time to take the same approach with teachers, school administrators, and security guards, who should be allowed to carry the tools necessary to protect the students in their care. It's time to put an end to gun-free zones and make it much easier for responsible adults to arm, train, and protect themselves and the people they love from the violent criminals who seek to harm them.

"You can't depend on somebody else to take care of your own life for you," Wrights said. "It's too precious to put it into the hands of somebody else, particularly when the seconds count."

The Libertarian Party Platform on Self-Defense states: “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.”

If folks really cared to make a difference then they would consider getting rid of gun free (or killing) zones.

[Shaka]

Like the Nuge showed there are a lot of people that us AR type rifles for hunting. My soldier nephew has an AR-15 and we had a blast shooting it on Thanksgiving.

[calicoug]

It is sad. I am not saying that these tragedies aren't sad. However, psychos will always be out there. If it is not a gun, it will be something else. Machete, axe, whatever (you can find examples of this recently in China). During the AWB, was there no mass shootings? If it was so great, why was it ever allowed to expire?

Sure you can use other weapons. You are also a lot less likely to kill as many people before being stopped. The point isn't to eliminate all killings, it is to greatly reduce one person's ability to kill large masses of people with little effort.

During AWB, there were fewer mass killings. We are actually at an all time high right now. I used AWB's definition for the purpose only of moving the conversation forwards, but part of why it expired is that there was too much attention to form over function rendering the ban less effective than it could have been.

[calicoug]

Drunk Tank is right on. The AWB had as much or more to do with gun appearance than functionality. The anti gun lobby invented the very effective term "assault weapon", but there isn't anything particularly special about them.

Fully automatic weapons should not be available to civilians. Perhaps we can also have a discussion about high capacity magazines. But beyond that, it makes no sense to ban specific guns unless you go after all semi-automatics inclucing handguns.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not so concerned for purposes here of reaching consensus on what specifics must be banned- more on understanding why some people think nothing more should be banned. It sounds like you are in the camp of "ban something."

[calicoug]

It seems Cali and liberals in general are barking up the wrong tree again according to Professor Daniel Webster, expert in firearm policy and gun violence prevention at Johns Hopkins University:



I don't personally own any guns that fall under the definition given in this interview, however, I am opposed to a ban on these types of weapons. Banning these weapons does nothing to solve the real problem....

Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools



If folks really cared to make a difference then they would consider getting rid of gun free (or killing) zones.

Right. A mass shooter would never go to a police station because it is so heavily armed. Or an army base...

[calicoug]

But couldn't cars be replaced with public transportation?

Replaced? Not really. Not without huge expense that isn't really practical. Particularly for people living outside of a major city.

I take it you have never been wild hog hunting in Texas. These hogs are like mini tanks and will start charging if you don't make the first shot count.



Because these hogs are a huge pest problem (they do damage to the environment and agriculture) they can be hunted year around, day or night, and pretty much by any means.

http://taylor.ifas.ufl.edu/docs/Mari...Game/l1925.pdf

The next time you are in Texas I'll take you hog hunting. You can use my bolt action rifle since you are opposed to other types of weapons. Or you if are totally opposed to guns I have a selection of knives you can pick from.

Are you asking if I would choose to have you use a different gun to shot hogs if it meant fewer mass killings in elementary schools? Um, yes. I would. Wouldn't you too?

Chuck Norris would use his bare hands to kill the hogs. I'm just saying. Man up.