Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I personally find banning them to be useless no matter if you are for gun control or against it. Some states define them as being part of a "series" (AK and AR) which is very useless, as if a gun with similar properties to the banned series were to come out they would be unaffected. Than things like pistol grips and heat shrouds are defined as an assault weapon, which are mostly cosmetic. Finally another common definition is magazine capacity, which could be easily be countered by any would be shooters carrying more magazines, and if they have experience with guns the reload time won't matter that much.

And before we get into the discussion I would like to dispel some common myths.

1. AR does not mean assault rifle. AR stands for Armalite,the company that made the gun
2.AR-15's are not assault rifles. To be an assault rifle the AR-15 would have to be able to fire in full automatic. This mistake most likely comes from the AR-15 being the base for the M-16, the assault rifle used by the US military.

This is like what Medieval Japan did when they try to outlaw the usage of swords from their citizens.

Dude, assault rifles are not required to fire in full automatic. They are used primarily because of the accuracy of the weapon and the ease of using said weapon.

I just know this from experience. US Army uses the M-4 and SWAT teams use the AR. Fully automatic weapons are mainly used for neutralizing a massive threat i.e. an ambush of threats in mass numbers.

Assault weapons are designed to infiltrate and being the best designed weapon of choice when it comes to making a aggressive small arms attack. Most fully automatic weapons need to be laid on the ground giving a solid ground to compensate the firing rate. Like they have tripods. Otherwise you don't have complete control.

-from a guy who trained other soldiers how to use these.

What a useless definition you've come up with. It's so subjective because "best designed weapon for small arm attacks" can completely vary between situations. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, and even knives or tasers, can fall under that definition.

Which j guess for some is great, no weapons for anyone I'd probably the ideal some folks want us to live in. I personally disagree, and feel like we will merely be outlawing a symptom without treating the root cause.

j guess you are right about that. I have no true stance on banning these weapons. Also I'm tired of arguing about it. Seems like a waste of time, cause only the law makers can decide anything that will have a lasting effect.

I merely wanted to point out that fully auto small arms aren't considered assault weapons. And you are right, you can technically assault anyone with any weapon.

I have a few thoughts

1. "Assault" isn't a category you should focus on when trying to ban guns. It sounds scary to the ignorant public, but as Alex said, "Assault" doesn't mean "Automatic" nor does it indicate the guns ability to be used in a mass shooting.

2. Any attempt to ban any weapon is going to take years, if not decades for any effect to be seen. Banning the AR-15 doesn't make them all evaporate. There are more guns than people in America, the ease of finding a gun illegally makes any gun ban ineffective in the short term, because it will take years to find and remove all those guns from the street, possibly decades.

3. The best short term solution seems to be armed guards and metal detectors. It sucks that America has gotten to the point where this is necessary, but if you want to cut down school shootings in the next five years, an education budget increase and mandatory guards is about the only real way you can do so. As I said, any gun ban would take decades for enough guns to be off the street to make any effect.

A. A semi-automatic rifle ban has already been shown to be ineffective at preventing mass shootings (there were 14 during the previous ban, with Columbine being the most infamous.)

B. It would not have stopped many of the more recent, infamous ones. The shooters at Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Las Vegas all had handguns/shotguns on them during their rampages.

C. As there are over five million AR-15 style rifles currently in circulation, a ban on manufacturing them would do nothing, while a total ban would likely be quashed by SCOTUS, per McDonald v. Chicago.

D. Banning semi-automatic rifles would do almost nothing for actually preventing gun violence (rifles of all types made up 1.9% of all gun homicides in 2015). If the goal is to make some flashy statement or point that looks like you're doing something, it'll be a great success, but if it's to actually stop mass shootings and put a damper on gun violence, it'll be an abysmal failure.

A. There's no way to completely prevent mass shootings, the goal is to reduce them, and the way to do that is with multiple policy changes working together, a Semi-auto ban being just one of them.

B. Read A.

C. I agree that a ban alone wouldn't be enough, there would have to be a police initiative to collect banned guns whenever found. The process would be slow and won't get all of them, but that's not an argument as to why you shouldn't do it at all, that would be a perfect solution fallacy. SCOTUS attitude changes, and McDonald v. Chicago wouldn't stop an AR-15 ban anymore than a Minigun ban.

D. The goal would be to cut down on the ability of people to obtain guns that allow them to kill dozens of people in a short amount of time, making places were a lot of people are gathered in a small area safer to be in. Alone, it won't do much, and what it will do will takes years to happen, but it wouldn't be completely pointless if packaged with a massive gun law overhaul.

Alright. I can agree with you there. I personally just don't really care for creating an "assault weapon" category of weapon in the first place, because that leads to abuse by lawmakers and an easy scapegoat for them to win free political points while making hollow gestures to fix this problem.

Ban automatic weapons period, is my stance on it. No need to classify it, if it fires without the need for a trigger pull, it shouldn't be allowed to be used. Simple, direct, no need for loophole rich language. Assault Weapon in my opinion is just nothing but a buzzword at this point, since there is still no definitive meaning to the term.

What I don't understand is why, even if we had to ban guns, we don't ban Handguns and leave all the other guns alone? Handguns, make up the majority of the gun crime in the United States, by a wide margin. They are used in the most mass shootings by a wide margin. They're far more easily concealed then Rifles or Shotguns would be, and far easier to reload and use.

It'd suck because I like to target shoot with my revolver every once in a while but the truth is, while there are many reasons to need a rifle or a shotgun there's not nearly as much for owning a Handgun. If we actually want to make laws about this, then why is it that people who camapgin for gun control never touch handguns and only go after Assault weapons.

It feels like people just want an easy thing to get rid of so they can clean their conscious of the next batch of deaths to happen. Banning switchblades didn't stop knife crime, and banning rifles isn't going to stop or even dent mass shootings. But nobody cares because nobody actually wants good or smart changes, they just want to win a showy victory that means nothing and changes nothing but makes people feel good about themselves.

>To my level headed Americans, this won't stop

Simple minded pieces of shit^ like him can indirectly cause a young teen to throw his life away/maybe take innocent lives. I kinda like the song, but I'm not an idiot. A lot of "new" rap/hiphop and even old stuff can be taken in another way as far as violence. Trust me I lived on the streets of Baltimore, Maryland in the worst place for a white male to be. Good thing I have intellect and social skills. The "hood gangstas" respected me because I was willing to teach Ideals and in retrospect ex[plain issues caused by modern day racism. But enough of that, what I'm trying to explain is that these new "rap" artists only spread hate any have no sense of culture. wew long post

I honestly find the whole idea of banning certain kinds of guns pointless because it does little to curb violence, it merely changes the tools used. It doesn't really matter if you get shot by a .22 or 5.56, if you get shot in a vital part you're still likely dead or going to be dead by bleeding out. This isn't a video game, getting shot in the leg or the shoulder can still be fatal.

People going on about the power of certain guns imo are completely missing the point of gun regulation. We should be focusing on preventing the shootings from happening in the first place, rather than trying to tone down how many people are killed when they do happen. If it's something that would take a long time that's even more of a reason to start now.

I am not an American, but I consider banning guns only a partial solution at best. Sure, if the ban goes through, it becomes harder to acquire (certain) guns, but it's still not impossible. Even then, there are other means to kill people than just guns.

What really bugs me is that there doesn't seem to be any focus on the mind of the person that actually pulls the trigger. Like, why do they commit such terrible acts? Correct me if I am wrong here, as I have not been following this whole problem fully, but no one seems to look into what drives these shooters into committing these acts.

Well, that would require effort, and everyone wants to take the easy way to "solving" problems.

Ryumaru Borike said:

…the goal is to reduce them…

And banning semi-auto rifles doesn't do that. It might have stopped Parkland (but not the others as they all had other types of firearms on them), or the kid might have just stolen an AR-15 like the Sandy Hook guy did. As I said during the last gun control debate, the only way you can really tackle the issue is by addressing its root cause (mental health issues for mass shootings and urban poverty for most gun violence in general). Anything else is just a band aid that's not going to do much to stop the problem.

…collect banned guns whenever found…

SCOTUS' attitude toward the 2nd Amendment might eventually change, but I doubt their opinion of the 4th Amendment will. And even if it does, there's the issue with the 39 state constitutional protections.

..that would be a perfect solution fallacy…

I don't want a perfect solution, I want one that actually works. "Do something!" is a stupid philosophy if the "something" isn't effective at stopping the problem.

…cut down on the ability of people to obtain guns that allow them to kill dozens of people in a short amount of time…

Don't forget the worst school killing in US history was caused by dynamite. If the root of the problem isn't addressed, you're going to have to start implementing fertilizer and pipe control next.

Black Graphic T said:

…we don’t ban Handguns and leave all the other guns alone?

Because the 12,000 homicides are spread out across the country and year. It doesn't have the glamour, excitement, and horror a mass shooting does for the 24 hour news to pick it up and run with it for a week. Thus, all the outrage is focused on the segment that kills the least amount of people per year, simply because it makes for better news.

And banning semi-auto rifles doesn’t do that.

Over time, it will to some degree.

SCOTUS’ attitude toward the 2nd Amendment might eventually change, but I doubt their opinion of the 4th Amendment will. And even if it does, there’s the issue with the 39 state constitutional protections.

I meant when found conducting other searches, such as searching a car or when warrants are issued, and confiscating them under "contraband" And Federal Law trumps State Law anyway

I don’t want a perfect solution, I want one that actually works. “Do something!” is a stupid philosophy if the “something” isn’t effective at stopping the problem.

Other countries have shown that reducing the number of guns reduces the number of gun deaths. Asking for a complete stop to a problem is a perfect solution btw.

Don’t forget the worst school killing in US history was caused by dynamite. If the root of the problem isn’t addressed, you’re going to have to start implementing fertilizer and pipe control next.

Making bombs isn't an easy thing to do for the average youth, not like buying and shooting a gun.

You keep saying "address the root of the problem" but the root of the problem is multiple social attitudes held by millions of parents and teachers caused by changing times and a fear of lawsuits that isn't going to go away no matter how many shootings and papers proving shit like "Zero Tolerance" is the root problem.

You're basically asking to get rid of mental illness, apathetic teachers and bullies as if it's easier than getting rid of AR-15's. You can't, the former three are a fact of life that's not going anywhere.

You are also talking like we can't do both at the same time. This is a problem with the current gun control debate is that people believe there is just one or two causes to the mass shootings and if we just ban one or two things, we'll fix it, when it's a multitude of separate issues, like mental illness, apathy of teachers, zero tolerance, the rise of cyberbullying, over prescription of medicine, lack of school security and the over abundance of firearms coming together to make the current problem.

Just focusing on one of these things is a Band-aid on a bullet wound. Another thing is that acting like any solution that doesn't reduce the number of mass shootings in the next five years is a solution that "does nothing" This shit is going to take time to reduce, not doing anything because we just want to focus on one aspect of the problem is just going to take even more time before anything changes. And there is no way to "stop school shootings", they are going to happen, the goal is to reduce them because that's all we can do.

Other countries have shown that reducing the number of guns reduces the number of gun deaths. Asking for a complete stop to a problem is a perfect solution btw.

But that isn't asking for a complete stop of shootings. It's to reduce the number of shootings, which in my opinion is much more important than reducing the number of people killed in shootings. Reducing gun deaths in particular is irrelevant if people are still being killed in large numbers in weapon-free zones.

Making bombs isn’t an easy thing to do for the average youth, not like buying and shooting a gun.

Except buying a gun is age restricted, much like tobacco and alcohol. Also creating a bomb is not very difficult, it's just that people don't do it because the average person is not a psychopath. Remember that the Boston Marathon bombing was done with pressure cookers, which is not regulated at all.

Another thing is that acting like any solution that doesn’t reduce the number of mass shootings in the next five years is a solution that “does nothing” This shit is going to take time to reduce, not doing anything because we just want to focus on one aspect of the problem is just going to take even more time before anything changes.

That's the whole point. As stated before, banning "assault rifles" won't have a lasting effect because it will simply result in a different weapon being used. In fact, most of the people killed in the Virginia Tech shooting were shot by a .22 caliber pistol. It is a complete waste of time because, like you stated, it's a band-aid solution to a bigger problem.

I agree that we need to be focusing on multiple factors, but we need to be focusing on matters that actually affect the situation. It is as if we had a nationwide poisoning of meat, so we ban all sales of chicken. Sure it may reduce food poisoning reports from people who eat chicken, but that doesn't change the fact that there are other meats out there that are tainted. Even if we banned all meat sales that doesn't tackle the actual issue, which is nationwide poisoning of meat.

yummines said:

Except buying a gun is age restricted, much like tobacco and alcohol.

Not if you have parents that aren't careful on storing their firearms.
Multiple incidents of even toddlers getting a hold on firearms and causing damage have been reported.

The careful storing of firearms is relatively easy. A gun safe is good, but merely storing the gun and the ammo in two separate locked container is good enough to be considered safe.

What I think might help, while being a pain in the ass to deal with, would be a standardization of gun laws accross the US. Too many places are too lax with it such as Virginia, but too many are also abusively strict like California and it's classifying bolt action Rifles as Assault Weapons.

Another thing that might help is adopting a liscencing system similar to Canada, where you need to go down and register, and take courses to own a gun similar to getting a Driver's Liscence. We actually have something similar in this country already with concealed carry permits, it would just be expanding that for all gun ownership and having there be a mandatory evaluation course and psychological exam/history check, which would include online history as well. Violent threats made on social media would result in a decline of Liscence.

Not a perfect solution but it could help significantly impact the number of shootings and the ease for psychologically unstable youth to get their hands on these guns.

While we're on this topic, can we all just agree to do away with the "you could never challenge the full might of the US military, so owning them in the case of a totalitarian government is pointless" narrative? Because as we all know, a guerilla resistance with only small arms could never challenge the might of a large, industrialized military. What do you think this is, Vietnam? Afghanistan? The American colonies? Ethiopia? Afghanistan twice?
Not to suggest there aren't valid criticisms of the "security against tyranny" argument. Hell, most gun-owning Americans would be more likely to put down a revolution than take part in one. But "you don't stand a chance" isn't one of them, and I hear it ad nauseam in these discussions. It's fatalist and just outright ignorant of history.

@Black Graphic T I would be all for a DMV of Guns in America.

But that isn’t asking for a complete stop of shootings. It’s to reduce the number of shootings, which in my opinion is much more important than reducing the number of people killed in shootings. Reducing gun deaths in particular is irrelevant if people are still being killed in large numbers in weapon-free zones.

Again, why can't we do both?

Except buying a gun is age restricted, much like tobacco and alcohol. Also creating a bomb is not very difficult, it’s just that people don’t do it because the average person is not a psychopath. Remember that the Boston Marathon bombing was done with pressure cookers, which is not regulated at all.

Black Market sales invalidates any age restriction, as does just breaking into your parents gun case. I don't get this idea that because another weapon can't be regulated that guns shouldn't either. Creating a Bomb that can kill the amount of people you can kill with a Semi-auto rifle is difficult for child to do.

That’s the whole point. As stated before, banning “assault rifles” won’t have a lasting effect because it will simply result in a different weapon being used. In fact, most of the people killed in the Virginia Tech shooting were shot by a .22 caliber pistol. It is a complete waste of time because, like you stated, it’s a band-aid solution to a bigger problem.

I'm not even for the complete ban of assault rilfes, but make them licensed to own so that only people who have a reason to have that kind of fire power can have it. "it will simply result in a different weapon being used" By that logic, there is no reason for a ban on RPGs and Miniguns. The whole idea behind going after assault rifles is that they can make the death count of any one shooting triple compared to a handgun.

I agree that we need to be focusing on multiple factors, but we need to be focusing on matters that actually affect the situation. It is as if we had a nationwide poisoning of meat, so we ban all sales of chicken. Sure it may reduce food poisoning reports from people who eat chicken, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are other meats out there that are tainted. Even if we banned all meat sales that doesn’t tackle the actual issue, which is nationwide poisoning of meat.

That isn't even remotely what it's like.

I'm just going to point this out since a lot of confusion seems to be stemming from this, A lot of the heavy lifting for this is going to need to come from a State Level, and so you're going to need to compromise with state laws, or incentivize them to change to match federal standards, if you want to go anywhere.

A lot of folks are just like, "Well its the federal law and state laws don't matter and they should just fall in line". All well and good, but if that's your attitude, need I remind you that things like LGBTQ equality measures, were pushed and adopted by the States first, before the federal government had anything to do with it. Legalized Marijuana is being fought almost entirely be state law versus federal law. And that our system of government is designed in such a way that a State Legislature can challenge the Federal Legislature, or a State Court can overrule a Federal Court, precisely because "Falling in Line" is antithesis to the american political system.

So many people who talk about gun laws are very antagonistic to their state and local government, it completely hurts their cause and the discussion when they dismiss that very important part of the Checks and Balance system just for getting their own political views met.

The American colonies don't count because that was a way different time.

There is a MASSIVE difference between every war you just listed and a hypothetical war against a tyrannical US government. Vietnam and Afghanistan were both offensive wars on the part of the US, where the goal of the opposition was to repel the invaders for long enough that they no longer deem the goal worth the cost. They didn't "win" so much as US gave up after a while.

A war against the US government would be an defensive war on the part of the US government. And rise against them would have to take the battle to them, thus nullifying every advantage the Vietnamese had against America. You can win a Guerilla war with small arms when you are on the defense and live in a hostile terrain full of caves. You cannot win a full on offensive war with small arms on the opponents turf when there is no where to hide from a carpet bombing.

I don't mean to be rude, but the people who actually use the Vietnam War as an argument that a war against the US government is winnable are the ones ignorant of history. Not every war is the same, Vietnam had way more advantages against the US than people realize. Meanwhile a war against the US government has the government holding all the cards. It's just not comparable.

@Ryumaru Borike

By that logic, there is no reason for a ban on RPGs and Miniguns

You can in fact legally own a RPG and a Minigun in the US. However,

A:Due to FOPA, only guns made before 1986 can are allowed for civilians, so machines guns are expensive. How expensive? It can cost anywhere between ten-thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase a single gun.
B: Both are Class II as defined by the ATF, meaning you will have to go through lengthy forms to get it. This is especially limiting for rocket launchers, where you have to sign the forms for not only the launcher each individual rocket for the launcher.
C: There is also a $200 tax-stamp for Class II weapons, although this probably won't be a big deal if you could afford a machine gun in the first place.

I think this belongs in a different thread. This is about the worth of an assault weapon ban, not "could we potentially rebel with our weapons?"

Also I would like to say what works in one state doesn't necessarily works or is necessary in another.

For example, Vermont has the lowest gun laws in the nation, yet is also one of the safest. This does not mean we should throw away gun control and give everyone LMG's, but it just means that Vermont doesn't need excessive gun control. This is probably because its a rural state, where most common crimes are drug abuse and people aren't packed together

Sadly, the NRA would strongarm Republicans in opposing such a measure as "Federal overreach".

Except such standardizations are the reason why the Federal government exists.

A student's vigilance stops a mass shooting before it begins.

Here's the arsenal police have uncovered:

A universal federal law is probably needed for any gun restrictions. State borders are, by design, unguarded and unchecked. A state's gun law is only as restrictive as the laws of the neighboring states.

Stabbing more to the heart of the issue: kids being killed is bad, what are some ways we can protect them? What systems have worked in elsewhere, what has been problematic regarding this particular issue?

Good question… however, if you look at the stats, accidental deaths of children (under the age of 14) due to firearms is far lower than deaths due to car accidents, hiking accidents, team sports, house fires, parental neglect, drunk drivers, drug overdoses, malnutrition, etc. Most often the statistics you read about the high numbers of "gun related" deaths in children include "kids" age 18-24 (in what world is a 24 year old a "kid"?) as well as intentional homicides (which arguably, at least some percentage of those would have been perpetrated, with or without access to a gun) and suicides (which again, a significant percentage of those would have just ended up killing themselves some other way… hanging, overdose, jumping, cutting, etc)

So.. yes, kids being killed is bad. But its just as bad if the kid is killed in a bus crash because his bus driver was high on meth… and guess what, we already have laws that prohibit school bus drivers from driving while under the influence of meth… but that doesn't stop all idiots now does it.

So.. yes, kids being killed is bad. But its just as bad if the kid is killed in a bus crash because his bus driver was high on meth… and guess what, we already have laws that prohibit school bus drivers from driving while under the influence of meth… but that doesn't stop all idiots now does it.There is a higher per capita risk of permanent injury from playing organized sports like football, than there is from guns… but yet we as parents voluntarily send our kids off to play sports every day in this country.

So.. yes, kids being killed is bad. But its just as bad if the kid is killed in a bus crash because his bus driver was high on meth… and guess what, we already have laws that prohibit school bus drivers from driving while under the influence of meth… but that doesn't stop all idiots now does it.There is a higher per capita risk of permanent injury from playing organized sports like football, than there is from guns… but yet we as parents voluntarily send our kids off to play sports every day in this country.The problem with taking away guns, is that it will take guns out of the hands of the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners… but the criminals, who by definition don't follow the law… will be the ones still with the firearms. There are how many millions of guns in this country? Do we honestly believe that even if the left is successful in getting them banned, that they would all magically disappear? No, of course not. Instead, it will create a huge black market for them, just like the drug trade. Then law abiding citizens will have to cower in fear with no way to defend their homes and families… cause every dirtbag out there will know that they could enter virtually every home without any fear of resistance.

How about instead of a universal FEDERAL law to RESTRICT guns, we create a universal FEDERAL law to put guns into the hands of law abiding citizens who we trust and believe could be reliably called upon to defend the innocent?

Make a Federal Concealed Carry permit, that anyone can apply for and get who is willing and able to pass an FBI level background check, and willing to get at least 100 hours of dedicated firearms, ethics, and other training, can pass a phsyc eval, etc.

Then we allow these average joe citizens who have passed this high bar of qualifications to carry ANYWHERE IN THE US including schools, airports, planes, courthouses, churches, etc.

If we had a 100 of these folks in every community, how likely is it that criminals or terrorists would strike again? If a "bad guy" knew there was a possibility that some or all of the teachers at an elementary school could be armed and trained to defend themselves and their students… what is the likelihood that the "bad guy" will enter that school? Lets take the most recent shooting… how many fewer students would have died if even one teacher had been trained and armed, and had been able to take down the perpetrator?