What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[Uncle Ted]

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

A mass shooter did try to overtake our local police station once. He didn't kill anyone except for himself but apparently his plan was to exit life anyway. I doubt it even made the national news which seems to be goal of these crazies that want to take their own lives.

[YOUTUBE]EOKP2n585aQ[/YOUTUBE]

[Surfah]

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

Agreed. Someone posted the other day a picture of an AR that had been customized. It looks crazy, but in reality there are a lot of states where you couldn't even hunt deer with it.

[Uncle Ted]

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?

The truth is the previous assault weapon ban did nothing to help. Do really think banning assault weapons is really going to help stop people from bringing guns into "gun free" zones?



I have more faith that allowing teachers and administrators to cancealed carry will stop more mass killings at our schools.

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

If you want to kill hogs with your bare hands like Chuck then let me know the next time you are in Dallas.

[FN Phat]

But couldn't cars be replaced with public transportation?



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.

Can I take you up on the offer?

[Omaha 680]

I'm not in the camp of ban something. I'm in the camp of "if we are going to ban something let's have it make sense." There's nothing special about the 0.223 rifles used in Sandy Hook and Aurora other than they look like a military weapon. These mass shootings aren't a nut in a bell tower trying to pick people off. They are straight up executions. At the ranges we are talking about, a killer can be just as deadly, perhaps more so, with a couple of handguns.

So I'm saying the fixation on so called assault weapons is illogical. You don't reduce the ease if which someone can commit a mass killing with an AWB. You would have to ban all semi-automatic weapons, and that is not happening.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Omaha 680]

A few examples: The VT killer used only handguns. He killed more people and targeted a much less vulnerable population than an elementary school. The Columbine killers used handguns, shotguns, and a carbine rifle. The trolley square killer used a shotgun and a handgun.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[byu71]

I want to listen to a good level headed discussion on this. Not many supporters are appearing on the Cabel networks. Morning Joe made note of that this morning.

No wonder they won't appear, the emotion is so high right now. They start the conversation off this way. Do you really think your right to have a gun is worth the killing of 20 innocent children? Kind of like how Cali started this discussion.

I mean how do you answer that question? A open discussion where the premise starts from a conclusion that in my mind hasn't been established yet. That being the premise that a ban will actually prevent mad men from doing such awful things.

[Shaka]

No wonder they won't appear, the emotion is so high right now.

This is precisely why the conversation needs to take place at a later date.

[pellegrino]

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.

I find your argument weak, almost silly. First of all show the data that says there were fewer mass killings during the AWB (remember Columbine happened in the middle of that) then make a convincing argument that the spike (if it does exist) is CAUSED by the fact that the AWB expired.

I'm all for sensible gun legislation, but let's remember that criminals and people intent on doing harm won't care in the least bit about breaking the law to do what they want to do. I would rather that the anti-gun lobby put their resources toward changing gun culture in America with education and ads. I think it would also be a good idea for our own government to stop selling guns to drug cartels.

On a slightly unrelated note, any talk of making a ban retroactive and requiring citizens to ridiculous. Not only would it be impossible to enforce, but it would be vigorously resisted, to the point of violence, I think. Even reinstating the AWB in a modified form would take months, perhaps years and would be a huge waste of the few hours Congress works anyways. Put those resources toward changing culture. A gun ban will not change the way Americans feel about guns or how they use them. It will only further divide our nation in a time when we really need to pull together and get people back to work.

[pellegrino]

I want to listen to a good level headed discussion on this. Not many supporters are appearing on the Cabel networks. Morning Joe made note of that this morning.

No wonder they won't appear, the emotion is so high right now. They start the conversation off this way. Do you really think your right to have a gun is worth the killing of 20 innocent children? Kind of like how Cali started this discussion.

I mean how do you answer that question? A open discussion where the premise starts from a conclusion that in my mind hasn't been established yet. That being the premise that a ban will actually prevent mad men from doing such awful things.

Agreed, there is nothing honest about the gun debate and there never has been. It has always been an appeal to emotion and fear and never been based on anything verifiable or factual. It's not unlike the prohibition movement which spread lies about the effects of alcohol, and then once their dream came true they didn't have any idea of all of the bad that would come from it.

What most of the anti gun crowd don't realize (especially when they compare American gun violence to European gun violence) is that guns for better or worse guns are embedded into the fabric of American society and that if their wildest dreams come true and there is a repeal or significant modification of the second amendment then that fabric will disintegrate into chaos and revolution.

[Uncle Ted]

Can I take you up on the offer?

I would love to see you kill the hog(s) in the Surfah's clan tradition... with only knives and dogs...

[YOUTUBE]YYm7d5GAWss[/YOUTUBE]

[Jacob]

I want to listen to a good level headed discussion on this. Not many supporters are appearing on the Cabel networks. Morning Joe made note of that this morning.

No wonder they won't appear, the emotion is so high right now. They start the conversation off this way. Do you really think your right to have a gun is worth the killing of 20 innocent children? Kind of like how Cali started this discussion.

I mean how do you answer that question? A open discussion where the premise starts from a conclusion that in my mind hasn't been established yet. That being the premise that a ban will actually prevent mad men from doing such awful things.

It speaks well of those legislators who won't appear on TV to argue about guns right now. It shows that they are not complete morons.

As was mentioned, I think, a .223 semi-auto is primarily a varmint gun. So to answer the original question, the main use of civilian "assault weapons" is for hunting.

[Goatnapper'96]

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 love it when you liberal wankers start talking all martial like..."those silly rednecks that we are forced to endure think they can take on an M1 tank with just an assault rifle.....can't we just pat them on the head and then properly control everyone?"

In a city conflict the reality is an assault rifle is more often a more useful weapon than a tank. Spend some time breaking down the Israeli Merkava versus the US M1. Jet fighters have limitations there as well. Further, at the time this constitution was written the professional Army, as small as it was, also had far superior firepower than just a black powder rifle. It had cannons and battleships. Clearly, if the intent then was to "protect oneself against tyranny" the rifle was about as well equipped to win that all out fight then as assault weapons are today.

Far be it from me to point out that the overwhelming majority of incidents where the government might overstep its bounds with citizens, at least citizens currently located in this country, usually doesn't include the use of tanks, ICBMs or fighter jets.

I applaud your efforts to find Sooner's God to keep everyone safe and controlled. Here is your battlecry:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04SnO37v7S8"]Tank 1984 - YouTube[/nomedia]

[Jacob]

I love it when you liberal wankers start talking all martial like..."those silly rednecks that we are forced to endure think they can take on an M1 tank with just an assault rifle.....can't we just pat them on the head and then properly control everyone?"

In a city conflict the reality is an assault rifle is more often a more useful weapon than a tank. Spend some time breaking down the Israeli Merkava versus the US M1. Jet fighters have limitations there as well. Further, at the time this constitution was written the professional Army, as small as it was, also had far superior firepower than just a black powder rifle. It had cannons and battleships. Clearly, if the intent then was to "protect oneself against tyranny" the rifle was about as well equipped to win that all out fight then as assault weapons are today.

Far be it from me to point out that the overwhelming majority of incidents where the government might overstep its bounds with citizens, at least citizens currently located in this country, usually doesn't include the use of tanks, ICBMs or fighter jets.

I applaud your efforts to find Sooner's God to keep everyone safe and controlled. Here is your battlecry:

Tank 1984 - YouTube

No to mention that it is oh so easy to control the people of Iraq and Afghanistan with our tanks and fighter jets.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Far be it from me to point out that the overwhelming majority of incidents where the government might overstep its bounds with citizens, at least citizens currently located in this country, usually doesn't include the use of tanks, ICBMs or fighter jets.

Very true, but isn't it equally true that such incidents aren't (or haven't been) repelled by assault rifles? I don't understand how an armed citizenry is a viable protection against totalitarianism in 21st Century America. I don't support efforts to disarm the proletariat, but being armed to the teeth provides negligible protection against government overreach.