What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[Surfah]

LOL. OK. Stand up and tell the surviving kids at Sandy Hook and tell them how great the AR-15 is and why it should be legal and accessible. Would you do that?

Probably not. I am actually not a big fan of most AR-15s. They're a popular rifle because they're fun to shoot, have decent range and accuracy, can be affordable, .223 ammo is pretty inexpensive and can be found anywhere, and can be customized to one's content. It's actually the customization that turns me off to most. It's a double edged sword. Some are done really nicely. Others look like the Honda Civic from yesteryear with every Pep Boys accessory attached. As I have stated before there are several manufacturers of them and not all are created equal. Bushmaster makes an okay AR-15 and I have shot one. But it's not a high end rifle by any means. I don't own one and if I were in the market for an AR-15 (impossible to find lower receivers right now without being price gouged) I wouldn't consider a Bushmaster unless it was at the right price. So I am not sure I would feel comfortable gushing about their AR-15. Now if it was a Colt AR-15 I would.

[Bo Diddley]

The way to show scientifically that a weapons ban did nothing is to have two Americas--one with the weapons and another without weapons--and then compare the two. That's not possible, so the best we can do is make an educated guess.

It's scientifically proven that 26 people died in CT, despite a weapons ban.

I'm sure your point is that the ban could have stopped other incidents from occurring, and we'll never know. But to me, the ban is an absolute failure because of the bottom line--26 people were gunned down in cold blood. I'm not sure how you can defend it.

[Surfah]

Not so sure it won't. The emotional argument is being used effectively. KSL announced they were taking down gun advertising on their ad web site. They are welcome to do that, but as much as admitted they were doing it not for any factual arguments they have heard.

I think if nothing else the last election for President indicated an emotional appeal if done right, can be far more effective than a factual appeal.

That emotional appeal works both ways. I don't know if you have tried to purchase an AR-15 in the last few days but they're pretty much sold out everywhere. Lowers can't be found anywhere. Any that exist have doubled in price from what I have seen. Gun manufacturers are doing just fine. Ruger's stock is up over 700% since the day Obama took office. Fear works both sides. The gun enthusiast is snatching everything up for fear they won't be able to someday.

[byu71]

That emotional appeal works both ways. I don't know if you have tried to purchase an AR-15 in the last few days but they're pretty much sold out everywhere. Lowers can't be found anywhere. Any that exist have doubled in price from what I have seen. Gun manufacturers are doing just fine. Ruger's stock is up over 700% since the day Obama took office. Fear works both sides. The gun enthusiast is snatching everything up for fear they won't be able to someday.

It works both ways in the way people act. I have never bought a hand gun and yet I am pretty sure I am going to. I will talk to my boys and perhaps I may buy a few other guns they suggest that have a good chance of being banned. So yes, as far as "action" goes, both sides will react emotionally.

However, legislatively I think the emotional weight is on the side of those who want a ban. They will of course have the support of the media to help sway the argument.

Just like the tax issue, it won't be decided on facts, but an emotional appeal.

[SoCalCoug]

I think we should ban truck rentals and fertilizer.

Yes, because neither of those have as their primary purpose anything except causing severe bodily harm or death.

[SoCalCoug]

I love how libs are pointing to China as a land of sensible gun control. Newsflash, no one has guns there because it's a fucking police state! China killed millions of it's own citizens!! What kind of utopian la la land are these idiots living in??

No, people are pointing to the China incident on the same day as an example of how guns make it far more easy to kill someone than other weapons - i.e., knives.

Somone over on CB actually cited the China incident as an example of how someone could kill a bunch of schoolkids even without a gun. They forgot the little detail about how nobody in the China incident died.

Guns are far more lethal than knives or other personal weapons. Why do you think they're the personal weapon of choice for police and soldiers?

Guns, particularly guns that allow you to get off a lot of shots in a short amount of time, are a far more efficient weapon than knives or other types of weapons.

Before you start calling other people "idiots," make sure you understand what point is actually being made.

[byu71]

No, people are pointing to the China incident on the same day as an example of how guns make it far more easy to kill someone than other weapons - i.e., knives.

Somone over on CB actually cited the China incident as an example of how someone could kill a bunch of schoolkids even without a gun. They forgot the little detail about how nobody in the China incident died.

Guns are far more lethal than knives or other personal weapons. Why do you think they're the personal weapon of choice for police and soldiers?

Guns, particularly guns that allow you to get off a lot of shots in a short amount of time, are a far more efficient weapon than knives or other types of weapons.

Before you start calling other people "idiots," make sure you understand what point is actually being made.

Yea, using China as an argument by either side is dumb.

[SoCalCoug]

Of course, there is no data that supports that the federal assault weapon ban helped to do anything other than infringe on the 2nd amendment freedoms. If you have data otherwise please share. i.e. Put up or shut up.

Name one mass shooting where the shooter used a weapon banned by the federal assault weapon ban.

Wouldn't you say the law worked?

It's not really a valid argument against a weapon ban when you point out that the shooter used a legal weapon.

And yet I keep seeing it made.

[Bo Diddley]

Guns are far more lethal than knives or other personal weapons. Why do you think they're the personal weapon of choice for police and soldiers?

Dead is dead. And each has their advantages. So much so, that there is a 21 foot rule. This rule states that if you let someone with a knife get to within 21 feet of you, they are likely to win with their knife over your gun.

Personally, this Soldier carries a knife for personal protection--not a gun.

[Surfah]

Name one mass shooting where the shooter used a weapon banned by the federal assault weapon ban.

Wouldn't you say the law worked?

It's not really a valid argument against a weapon ban when you point out that the shooter used a legal weapon.

And yet I keep seeing it made.

Columbine.

[SoCalCoug]

Columbine.

Far more of these mass shootings are accomplished with legally-obtained weapons than with illegally-obtained weapons.

[SoCalCoug]

Yea, using China as an argument by either side is dumb.

No, I think there's a point to be made. Same day: shooter goes into a school with guns - kills 27; shooter goes into school with knife - wounds 22, kills none.

This illustrates how guns are far more efficient at killing people than knives are.

[pellegrino]

Yes. A nice controlled experiment on the same damn day. Chinese crazy person in China with a knife versus American crazy person in America with a Bushmaster assault rifle. Look at the difference. It doesn't take a genius to see that the assault rifle should be illegal.

We aren't talking about the overall murder rate. We are talking about plain common sense.

Sooner, you know better than to call what happened in China a controlled experiment. You sound like a bible thumper using "science" to prove the historicity of the Bible.

[SoCalCoug]

Dead is dead. And each has their advantages. So much so, that there is a 21 foot rule. This rule states that if you let someone with a knife get to within 21 feet of you, they are likely to win with their knife over your gun.

Personally, this Soldier carries a knife for personal protection--not a gun.

Yeah, dead is dead: Kids shot with guns at Newtown are dead; kids stabbed with knife in China are not dead.

[SoCalCoug]

Columbine.

Yeah, I walked into that one.

Nevertheless, most of the mass shootings have been with legally-obtained weapons. Here's a good rundown of the mass shootings over the last 30 years: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/ini...-shootings.php

I keeps seeing people arguing against a gun ban bring up the fact that the guns were obtained legally. I just don't know how that helps their argument. Only a very few mass shootings have taken place with illegal weapons; can't you say that the fact more haven't occurred suggests the ban is working? And the fact that more have occurred with legal guns suggests the laws don't go far enough?