AR15 variants are widely used for varmint hunting - prairie dogs, coyotes, etc. The bullet is .22 caliber (well, .223 but that’s a .001 inch difference) and accurate enough for small animals at a couple hundred yards. So, in fact, many hunters do indeed use them and they are ideal for small critters.
Elephants & Rhinos:rolleyes:
I’m sorry if something is seemingly clearly evident to you while it isnt to me. People do not need a perfect understanding of a thing in order to use or regulate it. I dont know how an internal combustion engine works, yet I can drive a car or pick one that has good gas mileage. I dont know every single stance Obama has on every issue, and I dont really know what the Interior Department does, but I can vote for him and support his choices. Again, I’m not going to be drawn into some kind of nitpicking back and forth rant on specific cartridge sizes, bullet speed, or firing rates. What is defined generally as “assault weapons”, with the general understanding that it can kill a lot more people quicker than regular old handguns, should be banned because nobody requires it in their daily lives.
Whats wrong with allowing people with more knowledge of the specific items set the line by line details in a law? Do you read every single line of every bill that you come across? Dont try to play that kind of bullshit and expect a serious answer
Sorry, I guess it was too much to expect a rabid gun advocate to realize that I meant a TOTAL gun ban
Irrelevent. I clearly said that both danger and uselessness are the main factors in the ban. Plus its totally useless for civilian use. I’m sure all the people buying these guns are simply using them as paperweights
Assuming that is true, maybe we should start classifying them by firing rate and caliber. That is, if you gun advocates are ok with any sort of reasonable legislation. From the vitriol I’ve gotten in this topic, that seem highly unlikely
If it can be proven that you can be safer wearing a bomb than carrying a gun, would you then feel its not ok to endanger people? Because it seems to me that this has been my argument all along: you should sacrifice some small measure of possible safety so that as a society we can move towards having no guns, the result of which is that we’ll all be many degrees safer. I find it greedy and selfish for anyone to think that they need to have total and unfettered access to all sorts of firearms just so they can feel a little bit safer. I’d rather have it the other way around and its dishonest to paint someone as a hack for thinking so
By no use, I assume you mean… no use at all, right?
So, this isn’t a use?
Firing rate? It’s obvious with the use of this term that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you bothered to research this at all?
Semi-Automatics all have the same firing rate: One pull of the trigger, one shot. The firing rate is based on how fast the trigger is pulled, which even in the most archaic of semi-automatic firearms, is far slower than the bullet itself fires, or the gun can be re-targeted.
So you decide to stay blissfully ignorant while suggesting curtailing rights affirmed by the Constitution. Several people have attempted to “learn” you but you refuse to move beyond your incorrect assumptions. Personally, I prefer someone to have a slight fucking clue about what they are talking about, especially when they are attempting to legislate away my private possessions. I guess I’m just strange that way.
Since you have no clue (again) why should anyone take your line of bullshit seriously?
Well, you seem to be all about hunting, sio lets talk about that first genious. Hunting rifles, those used to take deer and other species are significantly more powerful than those labeled as assault weapons. I know that is a tough on for you to understand, but think about and I or others can explain further if you feel it would be worth it.
Second, firing rate has already been legislated, but I am not surprised that you either don’t know this or don’t care. A full auto gun, one that the military uses, one that will fires all of its cartridges as long as the trigger is depressed is highly regulated by the Feds and has been for about 80 years. In that time, 2 crimes have been committed with these types of weapons.
Semi auto, which is one bullet fired per trigger pull and totally acceptable for hunting is what the AW ban targets. So there you go. the AW ban targets rifles that are of smaller caliber than their hunting specific cousins and shoot slower than their military inspired brethren. they are used in less than 2% of all gun related crimes and are a total non issue.
How is that for fighting ignorance? I can debate as nicely as the next guy, lose the smugness and you’ll see the vitriol disappear.
This is urban legend, or one particular person’s interpretation. It’s not really true. The primary concern for designing them was low weight of ammunition and controllability - lethality was maximized with those constraints.
The shoulder thing that goes up.
You mean, the bullshit inherent in trying to find out if you have any idea what the operational definition of an “assault weapon” is (you don’t, cuz there isn’t), if you knew what was actually legislated (you don’t) or if you could justify it beyond “politicians said it and everybody should agreeeeeeee!” (you can’t). Yeah, horrible bullshit on my part.
Look, you’ve been shown to be someone who simply makes shit up if it suits your argument. Common semi-automatic hunting rifles designed for varmint hunting? They kill rhinos. Guns placed on the AWB simply because of cosmetic features? They’re too dangerous to allow people to use them. Why not really get into the game and totally invent shit?
I mean, really go hog wild. Assault weapons aren’t just more dangerous than non-assault weapons, but their ability to shoot antimatter bolts has proven that they can destabilize matter itself. Assault weapons must be banned due to their ability to suck the souls right out of children’s bodies if children come within 100 yards of them. Assault weapons are a scourge upon our nation due to their ability to fire through 12 feet of solid steel armor plating.
Really, go nuts. As you’re spewing untruths and asking that we just believe ignorant/dishonest politicians since you can’t possibly back up your argument, go wild.
I’ll grant that, with the example you gave above with the AR-15, it has some use. But you know as well as I do that a couple anecdotes does not make a trend. Maybe if we all lived in the woods surrounded by rabid dogs, I’d reconsider. But most people live in urban areas and even the rural ones have low rates of animal attack.
What I want to know is how far do you take that? Its illegal to booby trap your property, do you want that law repealed too? And though some call it racial profiling, many people call keeping an eye on black people going into your store to be simply pragmatic. After all, minorities are much more likely to commit crimes and be in jail. How about if a cop on patrol stops only black people? They’re much more likely to be criminals or have a warrant than whites, right?
Dont pretend as if the gun industry is being singled out on safety. The cost of human life is often a factor in regulations. Something that may cost $10 million a year and can save 100 lives would probably pass, while something that costs $100 million that saves 10 lives would probably be derided as too expensive. Guns arent any different. Give me a rapid firing, high caliber assault weapon and I’ll probaby question why its needed. Its uses are outweighed by its danger
Oh great, thank you mr technical know-it-all. I’ve already warned you that I’m not going to get suckered into this type of piecemeal debate over every single function of a gun. I care little about your assumptions and more about what is defined as assault weapons in the actual bill
This.
Let’s see it again.
We don’t have to put forth a ‘convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument’ in order to preserve our rights. You have to put forth a convincing, factually based (not ‘gangbangers probably,’) argument as to why citizens should surrender their rights.
One more time for good luck
We don’t have to put forth a ‘convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument’ in order to preserve our rights. You have to put forth a convincing, factually based (not ‘gangbangers probably,’) argument as to why citizens should surrender their rights.
In any case of The Gov taking away rights or privileges, THEY have to be able to justify it. The People should not have to repeatedly come up with new (or the same) arguments to just hold onto what they’ve got.
It’s generally considered megafail to contradict yourself one sentence to the next.
If yo urefuse to talk about the functions of a gun, then you cannot talk about what’s defined as an “assault weapon” and why it’s different than a normal weapon.
I’ve never even seen your posts before, but even I’ve already flashed to the silly little game you’re playing.
You claim that “assault weapons” are more dangerous, and make shit up about rhinos, but you refuse to actually define what an assault weapon is, or why it’s any more dangerous than a “non-assault weapon”.
When it’s pointed out to you that they’re not actual elephant killers or more dangerous than, say, the hand guns that are used to commit most crimes, you ignore it or try to change the subject.
Then you spew bullshit and pretend that you actually care about what is defined as an assault weapon in the AWB. But when pressed on questions of why weapons are defined as assault weapons in the AWB, you refuse to answer and say instead that we should just blindly trust whatever a politician says.
And if someone points out to you that some of the things regulated under the AWB are simply due to cosmetics and not any functional difference, you again retreat to your claim that you don’t want to discuss functionality, you just want everybody to agree that even when they’re wrong, politicians are right to claim that it’s an issue of functionality.
This happened in a Suburban area.
I’ve given you a legitimate reason to own this type of firearm, this firearm is rarely used in crimes, this firearm is also used to hunt small game (emphasis on the small).
Why are we banning it again?
Strawman… major, major strawman.
This isn’t technical know-it-all, this is common sense.
You obviously haven’t bothered to educate yourself, you’re continuing to evade education – despite the fact that I’m offering it to you without you having to track it down. May I ask why you’re on a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance, when you’re attempting to perpetuate it?
You ‘care little’ about ‘my assumptions,’ which aren’t assumptions but mechanical, verifiable facts, and you state that you’d rather let assault weapons be defined ‘in the actual bill,’ but the bill doesn’t ban based on function, or caliber, or ANYTHING of relevance, it bans based on cosmetic features.
Not to mention the fact that the ban doesn’t help anything, it doesn’t lower crime and it doesn’t save lives.
Government shouldn’t be in the place of restricting liberties based on cosmetic features, or banning things that don’t save lives. This ban saves zero lives.
I’ve seen more shit-ignorant “arguments” and bad-faith debating on this subject before, but I’d be hard pressed to recall when.
And to clarify any possible confusion, my last post was not addressed at any pro-RKBA poster in this thread.
Rarely do you get to see someone make such a fool of themselves around here. You want to discuss an issue, yet you don’t want to have the slightest base of knowledge from which to discuss. I’ll just stick with my initial assessment of you.
All I’m getting from this is “I don’t need facts when I already know what I want to believe!” We’re trying to give you the facts about various types and classifications of weapons – which, far from being minor regulatory details, are in fact the sum and substance of this proposed legislation – and you’re brushing it off as though it’s virtuous to remain dutifully ignorant on this subject while fervently advocating heavy regulations based entirely on your nebulous “general understanding.”
Do you even have the vaguest idea of what this “general understanding” entails? Your constant dodging of this question is really sufficient answer, but it’s worth asking again.
Bullshit indeed. We’ve been demonstrating all along how these laws are crafted by people without the faintest hint of specific knowledge about firearms. But even if they did know what they were talking about, it wouldn’t give them the authority to violate our rights.
So, let’s see if I have this right: irrespective of any actual evidence of harm, we should ban them because of some vague “general understanding” that they’re dangerous, and because you can’t think of any reason someone would need one?
Well, sorry. The lawfulness of some activity is not predicated on its necessity, nor does indirect or possible harm provide a justification for prohibiting an activity to the law-abiding. Else it would be illegal to buy alcohol or tobacco at the local 7-11, both completely unnecessary vices that don’t even require the deliberate malice of criminals in order to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year.
As others have pointed out, any vitriol you’re getting is more likely due to your consistent intellectual dishonesty than any unwillingness on our part to listen to reason. We don’t oppose reasonable laws: we already have quite a lot of them. What we consider prima facie to be unreasonable are any regulations that effectively treat us like criminals, placing onerous restrictions on our right to bear arms because of the overtly criminal actions of a few.
So tell me, what does page 403 of the stimulus package say?
Kind of hard to rob a bank with a couple of slow firing rifles. Plus, you cant really conceal them in your pocket. I’m fine with your rifles, despite its power
So if already been legislated, what difference does it make to you to add them to this bill, assuming thats what they’re going to do? You seem to like to argue simply for the fun of it. Oh, boo hoo the gun advocate complains, theres thousands of laws in the books for guns already! Cry me a fucking river guys. If it doesnt impact guns like you claim, then a few more isnt going to make a difference
Me? Smugness? Ha, have you been reading what your fellow gun advocates have been saying? They act like their shit smells like popcorn and butterflies. You’re no different. I simply said that people dont need it in their lives and you come in telling me to recite your life story. FinnAgain then offers me a burlap sack to wear. Seriously, grow the fuck up. Just because I’m not enamored with blowing people’s brains out doesnt mean I’m against protection or want your daughters to be raped
But assuming you’re not bullshitting me, I’m fine with starting over. I dont think people need the kind of rapid fire assault weapon type guns and they are too dangerous to keep around. Its like having a rock of plutonium as a paperweight: shield it under a lead box and I’m sure you’ll be fine but you really dont need it
Excuse me for trusting that some politicians have an interest in keeping dangerous guns out of people’s hands. You seem to see anyone trying to even breathe a hint of legislation near your precious guns as fork-tongued mini-antichrists, but fortunately there are less paranoid people out there. But hey, excuse me for trampling on your fantasy world
Post a sentence in which I made up any facts about guns. If you consider rhino hunting to be anything more than a sarcastic remark at a stupid inquiry then I suggest you brush up on your english
To me, that sounds awfully like the same tactic used by religious groups. Entrenching your argument on tradition and culture does nothing to bolster your facts, its simply a means to stifle honest debate. Lets be clear, nothing we say here is akin to standing up in front of the Supreme Court and defending the 2nd Amendment, so why not both start from scratch? I’ve already presented a case as to why some guns should be banned, the ball’s in your court
Thats not a contradiction. Have I debated every single function of a gun yet? I simply pointed to a few parts in which I believe are good criteria to build a foundation on. What I’m not going to do is to, for example, say that if a bullet travels X speed, then that would fall under banned but if it travels Y speed then its ok.
This is why I dont take your arguments seriously. The rhino thing was a joke, a sarcastic exaggeration done in order to show that I’m not about to attempt to justify people saying they want to own weapons because just maybe they might one day be attacked by an elephant stampede and need car mounted machine guns and landmines. By the way, that previous sentence was also such an exaggeration, since you seem immune to it
So YOU are the one who knows what page 403 of the stimulus package says! Please tell me, I’m dying to know whether I should support it or not
The answer to that is simple. You guys have been rabidly attacking me like a pack of dogs since I came into this topic. I have no more faith that you guys are arguing on good faith and telling the truth about the AWB any more than I trust the GOP to not attack Obama on every little thing.
If you honestly, seriously have an issue with trusting some politicians to write laws on guns, then you should probably be like that for every law. And considering many congressman dont even read the full text of some thousand page law before voting on it, I seriously doubt that I need to be familiar with every single word of the AWB in order to be for it.
Here’s an idea, if you think the law is bad in some parts, post the relevant sections and start a debate on that
Because the guns they’re legislating aren’t the guns you think they’re legislating.
They’re not banning fully automatic firearms, they’re banning guns which are not fully automatic, but look similar.
We’re not asking for you to read the entire thing, but to understand the basics of it. At least read the Wikipedia article about it.
The entire bill is a ‘feel good’ achieve nothing, ban-guns based on their cosmetics bill.
It speaks of executive compensation and corporate governance. The internet is a wonderful tool, so much information at anyone’s fingertips.
AW’s are not used in 98% of all crimes committed with guns. They are full sized rifles that are not easy to conceal.
Look, it is painfully, and do mean painfully, obvious that you do not know what an AW is or is not. The rapid fire rifles that you are speaking about have been restricted. They are not a nuisance to society. Why would you want to write more legislation to a non-issue?
Rapid fire assault weapons were first legislated in 1934. They were further banned in 1986 from any new productions being available to the general public. In the 75 years that these weapons have been regulated, there have been two documented crimes with them, both perpetrated by Cops FWIW. I don’t know how much clearer I need to make it. These guns are crazy expensive $10k plus at a minimum. they are not a blight on our otherwise peaceful society.
Thats not a contradiction. Have I debated every single function of a gun yet? I simply pointed to a few parts in which I believe are good criteria to build a foundation on. What I’m not going to do is to, for example, say that if a bullet travels X speed, then that would fall under banned but if it travels Y speed then its ok.
I provided a link, make your own decision now.
Gotta go for now. More on that later…
You’ve given me one instance. If thats the game you want to play, fine. You said assault weapons were used in 2 crimes in the past 80 years. By my count, you owe me at least 2 more reasons why this type of firearm should be legal. Or we can simply not play this game.
Ok I’ll bite, why is it a strawman?
Common sense to you perhaps. Maybe you can answer me why I should be expected to read every single bill from end to end before I support it? Hell, even congressmen dont do that. And I’m sure with some of the longer bills, ones in the hundreds or thousands of pages, are simply scanned. Tell me why I shouldnt do the same
Or you can, like I suggested to FinnAgain, post the relevant parts of the bill and tell me why thats bad
There are people out there who still think that the earth is 6000 years old and I’m not allowed to assume that you, somebody who seems to me to think I should read every single page of every bill I have an opinion on, might be arguing from dishonesty? Tell me thats not fair considering the kind of ignorant attacks I’ve been subjected to. I trust the politicians who put the bill in place to know enough about guns to put the dangerous ones in there. Theres nothing ignorant about that. Lazy perhaps, but oh well
You’ll be hard pressed to debate that banning dangerous guns would save zero lives. But I’m sure that your next tactic will be for me to actually name a life it saved. :rolleyes:
What ratio of bullet speed and weight would you consider the ideal to eliminate humans wearing quarter-inch Kevlar vests? Oh, you dont know? OMG HOW IGNORANT!! :smack:
That would be well and good if you actually replied to me and told me why I should be able to drive a car without knowing how an engine works
I know that some guns can, to put it simply, blow away more people faster than other guns. I consider those somewhat more dangerous than your everyday handgun. I’m interested in getting those guns off the streets. I do not believe doing so infringes on your right to bear arms because I believe the government has the right to regulate guns. Easy enough for you?
Actually, you guys have been *saying *that a lot but I really dont see any proof of it. Anyone can just say anything. “Guns dont kill any good people and everyone who dies from a gunshot wound is bad anyway”. See what I just did there? Thats bullshit, the same as your “Politicians dont know what they’re doing! Believe what I say or you’re a fool!” I hate to do this because I enjoy the philosophical aspects of the gun debate but…cite? Give me some actual lines from the proposed law that are bullshit and the relevant evidence to back up your claim that those lines are bullshit
Oh so, this is where its going? Guns have always been legal so I have to prove harm before being allowed to engage in actual debate? Well guess what? God exists. So does Vishnu, and Arienhod, and Apollo.
What you consider no reason I consider danger. Tell me, why are bombs and grenades illegal? No, this isnt the same thing I asked before where I compared the defensive capabilities of a gun to a bomb. What I want to know is this: since grenades havent been used to commit many crimes, since they can be of some legitimate use that I can imagine, and they are not dangerous unless I misuse it, why are they illegal too? You may not need grenades, but if you can imagine a use for them, like people are with assault weapons, why make it illegal if it hasnt been shown to harm many people?
In fact, the same idea can be extended to even more overly exaggerated things. Nukes have been used only twice, and both times legitimately by the government in war. Why would anyone make the stupid argument (I’m being sarcastic here, for those who cant tell) that allowing nukes to be owned by private citizens would be bad? You are essentially using the same argument. Assault weapons = not that dangerous in the right hands, nukes = same. Assault weapons = can be useful, nukes = same. Assault weapons = can be used for protection, nukes = same. Assault weapons = should be legal until you prove its not, nukes = same. I mean, call me what you want, but I’d like an answer to these questions first before you accuse me of anything because I’m seriously seeing some really dishonest debating tactics from you guys here
My vitriol likely stemmed from the offering of a burlap sack to wear, when all I did was ask why people would need assault weapons. But thanks for playing.
Also, nobody ever answered me on why murder is illegal. Shouldnt it be legal for us law-abiding citizens who would never murder someone who didnt deserve it? Why would the government restrict our rights and treat us like criminals based on the actions of a few???
Ah ha!
Assault Weapons are not fully automatic Weapons!
Assault Weapons is a term made up, which has nothing to do with Selective Fire (Fully automatic) capability!
Is it clear enough yet?
Assault Weapons are SEMI AUTOMATIC, NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC.
Fully automatic firearms have been used in 2 crimes. And, even so, by police officers.
The guns they’re proposing to ban are not the same guns that have been used in these two crimes.
Are you seeing why the logical disconnect?
BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU DON’T CARE!
We don’t have to put forth a ‘convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument’ in order to preserve our rights. You have to put forth a convincing, factually based (not ‘gangbangers probably,’) argument as to why citizens should surrender their rights.
You know, I took your advice and took a look at the wiki article. While I disagree with some of the provisions, I think the general bill is a good idea. For instance, it codified normal magazine capacity and defined a limit on how much is necessary. It removed guns which have the capability to be easily upgraded to launch grenades. Bayonet mounts, flash surpressors, and easily loading seems exactly like the type of things I would want to ban. I’m heartened that an older law bans fully automatic weapons and happy this one goes a step further to ban these larger guns with deadlier capabilities.