How much good would an assault weapon ban do to stop bombings?
You forgot the smiley. 
Oh, I also thought of something else that’s EXACTLY the same as assault weapons. Bazookas, grenades, fighter jets, and dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths when they bark. 
Given the mentality of gun advocates, I imagine that an AWB would increase bombings.
I want to get me some of those
Seriously though, if you’d like to understand the difference between a “machine gun” and a “gatling gun”, this ATF ruling would be a good place to start.
The devil is in the details. Not appreciating that makes you seem ignorant on the subject. I thought the facts were well enough established that we wouldn’t need to go over them again but:
The difference between an assault weapon and other semi-automatic rifles are largely cosmetic or ergonomic. The critical difference between guns is the bullet they use. The gun itself is a tool for firing that bullet, and while there are some characteristics about guns that will affect the ballistics (mostly related to the barrel), the most important factor is the bullet itself, the gun is mostly just a tool for firing those bullets.
The fact that you think the term assault weapon is meaningful in any real sense means that you don’t realize that the things that make an assault weapon an assault weapon are largely cosmetic or ergonomic. The only meaningful characteristic that has been attached to the definition of assault weapon is having detachble magazines, a common feature in many firearms.
Are you whooshing us? You do know that machine guns are already subject to very strict regulations, right? There is almost nothing more you can do about machine guns short of outright confiscation.
Assault weapon /= machine gun
I’m a bit too old to get excited about tacticool guns but I think that a few of the gun control types on this baord think that people buy these guns ebcause they look scary, my impression is that the mall ninjas that buy these guns are buying them because they look cool not scary.
You do realize how rare firearms accident are right?
You do realize that a rule like yours would have not have prevented the Newtown shooter right? IIRC, the Newtown shooter broke into a gun cabinet to get the guns and he would have known where his mother kept the ammo when he shot his mother in her sleep.
Are you assuming a lawless society if we didn’t restrict these things nationally? Because we don’t restrict them nationally now and we are still living ina alw abiding society the last time I checked, in fact the most law abiding society we have lived in since at least the 1950’s. Which is amazing considering we are in the midst of a prolonged recession.
You’re right, we should ban pressure cookers!!!
Right, because people who defend the bill of rights are terrorists. :rolleyes:
Thats a big if.
Okay, what does “second amendment solutions” mean?
I don’t know. You tell me.
I think it is a pussy’s way of suggesting you’re going to kill someone without being straightforward about it.
Only slightly less weak is the whole “come and get it” thing.
“Second Amendment solutions” is a pretty dumb ass thing to say, even in jest. Did anyone actually use this term, that isn’t you know, a fucking moron?
Well, some ban on some level of weaponry makes sense, if not specifically on assault weapons and anything heavier. I don’t see why it’s neccesary assault weapons, and it is better for public safety if a college kid can’t grab an assault rifle and gun down his classmates.
Besides, the only people who get worked up over any kind of gun ban are the people who talk about those ‘second amendment solutions,’ unaware that the government has vast resources to stop any kind of real ‘revolution’ before it happens. Whole government departments exist to investigate these things.
If you keep believing that, don’t be surprised after nothing new gets passed for another 20 years.
Well, that’s another issue. But the reason there’s no significant change in this country is not because an average person believes anything in particular, it’s because the people have no significant power.
And what I wrote is true, anyway. The people who talk about 2nd amendment solutions just like that feeling of power they get when they do so. In reality, any attempts to overthrow the government would be detected and stopped long before being put into action. Or would be highly unlikely to get off the ground, and not because the members are accumulating the wrong type of weapon.
The deadliest school shooting in American history was done with a Walther P22, a Glock 19, and a whole bunch of 10-round magazines.
I bet some people in Syria said similar things a couple of years ago.
You stated that the only people who get worked up over any kind of gun ban are the people who talk about second amendment solutions. That couldn’t be any further from the truth. Even on this message board there are plenty of left leaning and left voting folks who want nothing to do any gun ban yet are not calling for “second amendment solutions” whatever that means.
We are calling for politicians to get their heads out of their collective assess and create legislation that will actually do something to minimize gun violence rather than just making it look like they are doing something to appease their base.
Yes, and we need to ban backpacks and pressure cookers to prevent a new Boston bombing.
Oh man. That is insightful. I’ve never seen the issue in quite the same way as I do now. I wonder why nobody ever thought of putting the matter into such stark relief as that before.
Congrats! Mind officially blown.
Yep, that’s the crux. It’s why all those countries with harsh gun regulations/bans have comparable gun violence rates to the U.S.
They’re calling for a revolution. They’re idiots.
You do not represent the will of the American people. We live in a representative democracy that isn’t terribly representative considering that Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California. Your problem isn’t that democracy has been subverted, it is that it hasn’t been subverted by people who agree with you. The loony left is always quick to abandon democracy or claim it has failed when they don’t like the results.
What other countries are you talking about? Most (if not all) of those other countries never had one gun for every man woman and child. Even places like Australia had to go through a period of higher crime, particularly home invasions and robberies until they were able to leech even the small number of guns they had out of criminal hands. If we tried it here with over 300 million firearms in private hands, it would take significantly longer.
It isn’t the banning of the guns it is the irresponsibility of the owner I think should be the case where they are held responsible. If one has anything that could cause another harm it should be their responsibility to do all they can to avoid such a thing getting into the hands of others. Of course it will never be possible to stop all crime, but one should do all in their power to do all they can to prevent it getting into the wrong hands.