Should Assault Weapons be banned in the USA?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Assault weapons should be banned. People in the US will be made safer by this law. No one needs one of these weapons. They are used by the Military and by Law Enforcement, and not supposed to be used by civilians. Civilians have no need to use the same guns as Law Enforcement. Why? Would it be fair if a patrol cop has a 12 gauge shotgun, but a bugluar, instead of having a similar gun, has a AK-47 or a AR-15 or a similar gun? Please tell me who would win and why.

I am not for banning all guns, just assault weapons. People can still protect their houses with hunting guns and they do not need to outclass the police/ military in doing so. And, if someone breaks in your house and you use a AK-47, anyone knows that the bullet will most likey pass though the intruder and exit your house and maybe go into another house and kill someone else, while a shotgun shell would not. Do you wish to take that chance?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Define assault weapon.

You may mean assault rifle, which is a much more clear term.

[drone]

If you are going to ban assault rifles from civilian hands, they should also be removed from the police armouries. Military only, or available to all.

Regarding your examples, defending your home with a hunting rifle has just the same risk for hitting an innocent bystander. A .30-06 will penetrate walls just as well as a 7.62x39. Both are poor weapons for home defense anyway, the close quarters are not very well suited for them. The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun.

A firearm is just a tool. You can't remove a bolt with a hammer, you want a wrench for that. There are specific tools for the situations, an assault rifle is not always the best tool.

[rvg]

No need to ban them. Perhaps a more thorough background check might be in order, but an outright ban would be excessive.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Assault weapons should be banned.

First - what definition are you using? The actual definition (rifles with selective fire, ie you can fire fullly or semi-automatic) or the gun control hysteria definition (any gun that looks like a scary military rifle, even though it's only semiautomatic). The real definition will hereby be referred to as 'real assault weapons' while the gun grabber's definition will be referred to as 'Evil black rifles' (EBR).

People in the US will be made safer by this law.

No, actually they won't. Legally owned real assault weapons are few in number and have been used in crimes less than five times in the last five decades. EBRs are used in very few crimes (<3%) as well, and as such the 1994 'assault weapon ban' (which banned or affected only semiautomatic rifles) had no effect on crime. I can provide numerous quotes of supporters of that ban saying it was merely a step to greater regulation of guns.

Also, prohibition never works.

No one needs one of these weapons.

Yes, we do. The whole point of the second amendment is to enshrine the right of people to have military grade firearms so that they can, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical state.

Furthermore, in a free society a person should never have to prove to the government they need anything. It is not the government's place to decide what people need, at least in a free country.

They are used by the Military and by Law Enforcement, and not supposed to be used by civilians. Civilians have no need to use the same guns as Law Enforcement. Why? Would it be fair if a patrol cop has a 12 gauge shotgun, but a bugluar, instead of having a similar gun, has a AK-47 or a AR-15 or a similar gun? Please tell me who would win and why.

Now when you say 'AK-47' do mean the actual fully automatic, selective fire, rifle? Or just a semiautomatic clone that functions the same as pretty much any other semiautomatic rifle but is used by fear mongering gun controllers capitalizing on the public's ignorance?

Now, as to their use by civilians, I refer you to my response to your previous quote. I don't care if criminals use them, that is no reason to ban me from owning one. A law banning me won't cause criminals to stop using such weapons.

As for EBRs or real assault weapons not being meant for civilians - says who? So what?

I am not for banning all guns, just assault weapons. People can still protect their houses with hunting guns and they do not need to outclass the police/ military in doing so. And, if someone breaks in your house and you use a AK-47, anyone knows that the bullet will most likey pass though the intruder and exit your house and maybe go into another house and kill someone else, while a shotgun shell would not. Do you wish to take that chance?

Why don't you give real life examples of several instances of your scenario - a bullet from an EBR or real assault weapon passing through a house where it was fired in defense and killing somebody outside?

And you do know hunting rifles cartridges are almost universally more powerful than the cartridges an AK-47 fires? So wanting people to use hunting weapons instead of those evil AKs for that reason doesn't make much sense.

And shotgun shells do penetrate walls.

CR

[Jolt]

Wait, possession of assault rifles isn't forbidden in the USA? Oh my god. Are tanks also allowed to be privately owned?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wait, possession of assault rifles isn't forbidden in the USA? Oh my god. Are tanks also allowed to be privately owned?

Yes--there's an episode of mythbusters where they are trying to pull apart two phonebooks that have had their pages interweaved. Cars don't work so they go to somebody who has a private tank collection, about 20 tanks as I recall.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes--there's an episode of mythbusters where they are trying to pull apart two phonebooks that have had their pages interweaved. Cars don't work so they go to somebody who has a private tank collection, about 20 tanks as I recall.

Not just in the US either - IIRC English Assassin owns a Ferret.

[Jolt]

Yes--there's an episode of mythbusters where they are trying to pull apart two phonebooks that have had their pages interweaved. Cars don't work so they go to somebody who has a private tank collection, about 20 tanks as I recall.

...Tanks are actually allowed to be possessed? What about Apaches? Nuclear missiles? Is there any restriction to a weapon/war vehicle someone can have?

Man, one person can gather legally enough material to supply an army in the USA. If there is serious social unrest in the USA, it will surely be the bloodiest civil war anyone might see in a while.

[KukriKhan]

I draw the line at personal nukes. I want in-depth vetting of their owners, and constant and thorough reportage.

-edit-
and in fairness, I'm willing to abide by the same protocols.

[drone]

Wait, possession of assault rifles isn't forbidden in the USA? Oh my god. Are tanks also allowed to be privately owned?

Fully automatic weapons are very heavily regulated in the US by the federal government, you need licenses and permits and all kinds of hassle to acquire them. Semi-automatic (pistols and rifles) and single action weapons are not, they are generally regulated at the state or municipality level, and generally only require a background check and maybe a waiting period.

Tanks, being vehicles, would be regulated by the Department of Transportation. Weight limit restrictions will probably keep them off most roads, so getting a street-legal M1 Abrams is a long shot. The cannon (and shells) on the tank falls under ordnance, that's explosives so it's a whole other set of regulations. The FBI frowns on explosives. A machine gun mounted on the tank would again be a automatic weapon and regulated as such.

I don't see why an Apache would be out of bounds. As long as it meets FAA regulations and is flown by a licensed pilot, it should be fine. The Hellfire missiles and chain gun, however, would again be a completely different story.

Before we go down this path, try to remember the infrastructure required by the military to keep these vehicles operational. The average person can drive a tank down the street, but will not be able to service the vehicle properly and will be stranded the first time it throws a track. Keeping an Apache airborne would cost some serious money.

And tank ownership in the UK is legal, here's a modded FV432 made to look like a Warhammer 40K Rhino. Road legal, complete with MOT. Driving through London for the DoW II release.

[Odin]

This is for the OP and not for Crazed Rabbit although I concede he will have a wonderful answer. Lets assume you get your ban, now what happens to all those good folks (myself included) who legally own an assault rifle?

I followed every law on the books, complied with multiple regulations, permitting and usage laws that the state, federal and local legislatures could throw at me. I still have my AK-47, do I need it ? Perhaps I dont but thats not the question.

How would you ban my ownership of the weapon? Would you come and force me to give it up? How exactly do you apply a "ban" to those who have done everything required by law to lawfully have that item?

thus the paradox in the statement, when you ban things you negate the ability of human to manage thier own affairs. You essentially impose a moral or ethic on them which might represent the majorities will but flies in the face of human rights or endangerment argument. How is it that you, or anyone can impose and ethic or moral standard on someone who has displayed no inclination to abuse the right already extended?

Ban is a strong term and a strong application. Perhaps we can go for the banning the bible next? Historically its caused many individuals to kill and on that precedent the U.S. would be safer if, the bible was banned.

[caravel]

Ban is a strong term and a strong application. Perhaps we can go for the banning the bible next? Historically its caused many individuals to kill and on that precedent the U.S. would be safer if, the bible was banned.

I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate here so bear with me. In truth I've not made up my mind on the firearms issue, though Assault Rifles should probably be military only in most countries. I would say that if you apply the same logic to the bible, or automobiles, or chainsaws as you apply to guns then you're missing a crucial point: Firearms are designed primarily to take life, they don't contain any holy scriptures, they're certainly not transport and they're not much good at cutting wood. Assault rifles are designed to take human life - I won't get into the industrialisation of warfare - but that's pretty much fact.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate here so bear with me. In truth I've not made up my mind on the firearms issue, though Assault Rifles should probably be military only in most countries. I would say that if you apply the same logic to the bible, or automobiles, or chainsaws as you apply to guns then you're missing a crucial point: Firearms are designed primarily to take life, they don't contain any holy scriptures, they're certainly not transport and they're not much good at cutting wood. Assault rifles are designed to take human life - I won't get into the industrialisation of warfare - but that's pretty much fact.

Swords are designed to kill people too...

[caravel]

You'll have to pry this sword from my cold dead hands...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Swords are awesome! I could never think of an excuse for buying one though. And I'd probably do foolish things with it while intoxicated.

come to think of it, that's a good excuse...

[Vladimir]

...Tanks are actually allowed to be possessed? What about Apaches? Nuclear missiles? Is there any restriction to a weapon/war vehicle someone can have?

Man, one person can gather legally enough material to supply an army in the USA. If there is serious social unrest in the USA, it will surely be the bloodiest civil war anyone might see in a while.

Truth is, the state of Alabama is more heavily armed than most European countries (with the exception of Germany, of course).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

LOL at the outrage! Is 600,000 dead bloody enough?

[rvg]

...Tanks are actually allowed to be possessed? What about Apaches? Nuclear missiles? Is there any restriction to a weapon/war vehicle someone can have?

Man, one person can gather legally enough material to supply an army in the USA. If there is serious social unrest in the USA, it will surely be the bloodiest civil war anyone might see in a while.

Of course, there are restrictions. Ammo for example. 50 Caliber BMG is the highest caliber ammo legally available to civilians in 49 states with the sole exception of the People's Republic of California that has banned that caliber.

[caravel]

I doubt Mrs Asai would allow a sword in the house... such an unreasonable woman.

Swords are awesome! I could never think of an excuse for buying one though. And I'd probably do foolish things with it while intoxicated.

come to think of it, that's a good excuse...

[Strike For The South]

Truth is, the state of Alabama is more heavily armed than most European countries (with the exception of Germany, of course).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

LOL at the outrage! Is 600,000 dead bloody enough?

O Rly? O RLY?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

How would you ban my ownership of the weapon? Would you come and force me to give it up? How exactly do you apply a "ban" to those who have done everything required by law to lawfully have that item?

I'd like to start by saying that I don't think the Feds should be banning everything completely as that's a bit of a ham-handed approach to the issue and from my experience and the statistics Vermont for example certainly doesn't need stricter gun laws, and we have some of the laxest around. In general I see very little reason for people to be owning assault weapons though. If it is true that legal assault weapons are pretty much never used in crimes I would say that should stay legal and be more heavily regulated than other guns just to make it a little bit tougher to acquire them because they are far more deadly than other guns.

If a ban were to be instituted I assume it would be like other bans and exclude guns legally owned before the ban. This is for example why there are somewhere around six legal miniguns owned by civilians in the US.

[Brenus]

“It is not the government's place to decide what people need, at least in a free country.”
I thought, I was sure, I saw it on TV so it is true, you had elections, so the government in power represented the people, and that you had a Parliament and separation between the 3 powers, and all these things… Was I wrong?

“The whole point of the second amendment is to enshrine the right of people to have military grade firearms” Debatable. Right to have weapons and a militia, or right to have an armed militia?

“Now when you say 'AK-47' do mean the actual fully automatic, selective fire, rifle? Or just a semiautomatic clone that functions the same as pretty much any other semiautomatic rifle but is used by fear mongering gun controllers capitalizing on the public's ignorance?”
The one making holes in a body and explode internal organs creating massif haemorrhages…

“A law banning me won't cause criminals to stop using such weapons” Nope. It will ban innocent people to kill innocent people. There are more killed by accident than by criminals…

“And you do know hunting rifles cartridges are almost universally more powerful than the cartridges an AK-47 fires? So wanting people to use hunting weapons instead of those evil AKs for that reason doesn't make much sense.
And shotgun shells do penetrate walls”:
Range of an Assault rifle and a hunting gun: A 5.56 mm around 1.5 km, still dangerous. Hunting gun, dispersion and low speed, about how much meters?
One of the first things they show me (and the rest of the platoon) when I joined was the effect of a 7.5 mm bullet (we’ve got the 5.56 mm later) on a helmet at a range of 200 m (usual battle range), 400 m, and 600 m. Same result. A hole in, a hole out and the usual joke about your head in between would make no difference.
Try this with a shot gun, and we will find out that the helmet won’t be touch at this distance. You need to be much close, much much closer…

You accused the anti-gun lobby of manipulation but it is what you are doing right there.
Military weapons are not design to kill. Hunting guns yes.
When the French got the FAMAS they had to inverse the rotation of the bullet because it was too fatal.
A dead enemy is dead, done.
An injured enemy have to be carried, cured. He immobilises a lot a people.
4 personnel to carry one man, plus the entire platoon in protection, helivac, demoralisation of his platoon members...
Animal have to be killed. That is what a good hunters will tell you. That why their ammunitions are more lethal…

Shotgun shell do penetrate walls? Err, wooden one, perhaps. Concrete forget it.
That is why you can use them in urban fight. You won’t kill your mate who just go by the back yard, which you can do with a 5.56 mm…

“How would you ban my ownership of the weapon? Would you come and force me to give it up? How exactly do you apply a "ban" to those who have done everything required by law to lawfully have that item?”
Easy: A period of time when you can hand over your weapons without having problems with the law, them if you don’t, you have to pay a fine if you are caught with one… Was done in all post war rehabilitation programme and it more or less work. Al least, no body die because a stupid forget he put a bullet in presentation, safety off before to play with it to impress the local barwoman…
Of course, you always will have the smart one who will sell to the authorities a LAW full of potatoes (to make up the weight) but…

[Odin]

I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate here so bear with me. In truth I've not made up my mind on the firearms issue, though Assault Rifles should probably be military only in most countries. I would say that if you apply the same logic to the bible, or automobiles, or chainsaws as you apply to guns then you're missing a crucial point: Firearms are designed primarily to take life, they don't contain any holy scriptures, they're certainly not transport and they're not much good at cutting wood. Assault rifles are designed to take human life - I won't get into the industrialisation of warfare - but that's pretty much fact.

Respectfully I think its you that missed the crucial point of my post. One can argue that "holy scripture" based on intrpretation is designed to take life but thats a side argument....

My point isnt that firearms are or are not designed for killing but rather who determines what individual gets to practice what right? Again, I own an assault weapon, I have adhered to every law that pertains to them and thus have demonstrated over years that I infact earned the right to posses them.

This op supposes they should be banned. There was no affordance to those of us who chose to own them within the confines of the current laws and statues. Thus, if they are banned, under these circumstances then someone has imposed an ethic to me that I dont agree with. The religion/bible quip was to illustrate that by this logic we can impose this thought process on anyone or anything which some determine to be dangerous.

Also, more people have been killed in the name of religion then assault rifles owned by law abiding citizens in the U.S. We have strict laws and for those of us who obey them we shouldnt be penalized for a fear that is unsubstantiated. Perhaps the "ban" would be better translated if one were to say "Should law enforcement recieve better funding to remove illegal assault weapons from the U.S.?"

This is far to encompassing, as was my point with the bible. Not everyone who owns a bible is a murderer even though the religion they choose to support has advocated and prosecuted the deaths of millions in its history. If someone is lawfully owning a bible and isnt using it as an insturment to kill, I should be able to own an assault weapon if I use it lawfully.

AS you point out with cars etc, Banning is a slippery slope and what you might consider dangerous or nonsensical dosent mean I feel the same way, nor does it make either of us correct. However the op didnt seem intrested in the application at all, but rather the justification of what is morally correct in thier view. One can conject, bibles, korans, cars, gum you name it as dangerous, and in the same conversation someone else can justify thier safety. Its when you use the absolution of a "ban" that slip down the slope begins.

Then anything goes.

[Crazed Rabbit]

“It is not the government's place to decide what people need, at least in a free country.”
I thought, I was sure, I saw it on TV so it is true, you had elections, so the government in power represented the people, and that you had a Parliament and separation between the 3 powers, and all these things… Was I wrong?

Yes you were, we don't have a parliament or parliamentary system. But assuming you meant legislature - so what?

“The whole point of the second amendment is to enshrine the right of people to have military grade firearms” Debatable. Right to have weapons and a militia, or right to have an armed militia?

No, it's not debatable. It is the right of individuals to have weapons. The made-up right to an armed militia is absurd - it means only a group of people have rights, and that individually they have no rights.

“Now when you say 'AK-47' do mean the actual fully automatic, selective fire, rifle? Or just a semiautomatic clone that functions the same as pretty much any other semiautomatic rifle but is used by fear mongering gun controllers capitalizing on the public's ignorance?”
The one making holes in a body and explode internal organs creating massif haemorrhages…

What purpose does vagueness serve? That's what all guns do, but the details are important.

“A law banning me won't cause criminals to stop using such weapons” Nope. It will ban innocent people to kill innocent people. There are more killed by accident than by criminals…

What, exactly, are you referring to? More killed by accident with real assault weapons or EBRs than by criminals using those weapons or more killed by accident with guns in general? In either case, you're wrong.

“And you do know hunting rifles cartridges are almost universally more powerful than the cartridges an AK-47 fires? So wanting people to use hunting weapons instead of those evil AKs for that reason doesn't make much sense.
And shotgun shells do penetrate walls”:
Range of an Assault rifle and a hunting gun: A 5.56 mm around 1.5 km, still dangerous. Hunting gun, dispersion and low speed, about how much meters?
One of the first things they show me (and the rest of the platoon) when I joined was the effect of a 7.5 mm bullet (we’ve got the 5.56 mm later) on a helmet at a range of 200 m (usual battle range), 400 m, and 600 m. Same result. A hole in, a hole out and the usual joke about your head in between would make no difference.
Try this with a shot gun, and we will find out that the helmet won’t be touch at this distance. You need to be much close, much much closer…

By hunting weapon I meant specifically hunting rifles, which (mostly) use more powerful cartridges than the 5.56 and 7.62.

You accused the anti-gun lobby of manipulation but it is what you are doing right there.
Military weapons are not design to kill. Hunting guns yes.
When the French got the FAMAS they had to inverse the rotation of the bullet because it was too fatal.
A dead enemy is dead, done.
An injured enemy have to be carried, cured. He immobilises a lot a people.
4 personnel to carry one man, plus the entire platoon in protection, helivac, demoralisation of his platoon members...
Animal have to be killed. That is what a good hunters will tell you. That why their ammunitions are more lethal…

I am aware of the idea that a wounded enemy neutralizes more people as one of the reasons for the 5.56 NATO round. But how exactly am I manipulating people? I said hunting rifles were more powerful, and you agree. Why we should ban semiautomatic rifles because of that doesn't make sense.

Shotgun shell do penetrate walls? Err, wooden one, perhaps. Concrete forget it.
That is why you can use them in urban fight. You won’t kill your mate who just go by the back yard, which you can do with a 5.56 mm…

Most houses over here are made of wood or similar material.

In general I see very little reason for people to be owning assault weapons though. If it is true that legal assault weapons are pretty much never used in crimes I would say that should stay legal and be more heavily regulated than other guns just to make it a little bit tougher to acquire them because they are far more deadly than other guns.

Real assault weapons (with fully automatic fire) are already quite strictly regulated.

It shouldn't matter if people have reason to own weapons. If we want to embrace liberty for everyone, we must accept that people will do things we don't see the reason for. But that should be allowed as long as they aren't harming anybody else.

CR

[Strike For The South]

I want an Ar-15. Alas they are expensive and my shillings seem to run out to quickly.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm going to ignore the Brenus-CR quote tag (CR probably has this handled) and just address Jolt's comments.

Who is going to commit a crime with a tank? Gangs and criminals have nothing to gain by it because it's not concealable. It's a tank. Start driving it to gang fights and the local constabulatory (and National Guard) are going to deactivate your vehicle very quickly. And if you're concerned about whackjobs getting their hands on one and killing people, that can happen without a tank - the killdozer for instance. Or just walk onto a military base and commandeer one (didn't that happen within the last 2 years somewhere - though the guy just took it for a spin?). 99.9% of tank owners are collectors who have no interest in arming for some sort of civil war scenario (which will be bloody no matter where you have one).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm going to ignore the Brenus-CR quote tag (CR probably has this handled) and just address Jolt's comments.

Who is going to commit a crime with a tank? Gangs and criminals have nothing to gain by it because it's not concealable. It's a tank. Start driving it to gang fights and the local constabulatory (and National Guard) are going to deactivate your vehicle very quickly. And if you're concerned about whackjobs getting their hands on one and killing people, that can happen without a tank - the killdozer for instance. Or just walk onto a military base and commandeer one (didn't that happen within the last 2 years somewhere - though the guy just took it for a spin?). 99.9% of tank owners are collectors who have no interest in arming for some sort of civil war scenario (which will be bloody no matter where you have one).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIun536HFo

Of course! It's a classic! He seems to make an effort to crush bmw's and fire hydrants...


VV Works for me, think it's just youtube doing maintenance

[KukriKhan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIun536HFo

Of course! It's a classic! He seems to make an effort to crush bmw's and fire hydrants...

They yanked that vid. Here's another : http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30021721681764

1995 incident

[rotorgun]

I am in favor of a ban on Assault rifles, or at the very least extremely tight restrictions. Let me first tell everyone a little story:

I have a freind who recently had his home broken into while we were at work. My freind owns many weapons, one of which was an AR-15 (Maybe Strike can now buy it on the balck market), he also owned some sort of exotic European made semi-automatic rifle, the make of which I don't recall. The theives also got three other automatic pistols, but it is the rifles we're concerned with. These two weapons, either of which have a goodly rate of fire in the semi-automatic mode, can easily be conerted to fire in full auto. Kits are available for sale which have instructions for a person of average knowledge of firearms. Now these weapons are in the hands of who knows whom; an unsuspecting police officer is surely in danger should those persons be violent criminals.

Does anyone remember the bank hiest in California some years ago by several such armed individuals, who also wore ballistic armor? The average police officers, responding with their service revolvers and bullet-proof vests were absoulutely stymied in their pitiful attempts to take these individuals out. Not only that, but one officer was killed and many more wounded by these assault rifle armed individuals. Even the SWAT police could not easily stop them. I remember seeing film of the firefight-round after round fired at one of the gunman failed to penetrate his armor. All the while he was spraying hundreds of rounds back at the out-gunned police officers. It was a gotterdamerung of epic drama. Finally the gunman were killed , one by a police sniper, and the other commiting suicide when he knew the game was up. What a monstorous demonstration of the "liberal" argument against the ownership of assualt rifles. The amount of rescourses used to just take out these two individuals could surely have been better utilized in making the streets all that much safer.

I am a weapons enthusiast, although I own no weapons at this time. I certainly support the second amendment. I cannot personally justify owning such a weapon just for personal enjoyment or even self protection. I feel that such a law is not only needed, but morally and ethically sound. I would not consider it a breach of my right to own and bear firearms, but rather my concious decision to accept some restraints in interest of the public good.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So you're willing to accept anecdotes as justification of laws?