Should assault weapons be banned?
- Thread starter Cenna
- Start date
- Status
Woot
Well-known member
Being against 'assault' weapons? That's normal even in the U.S.
Saying something should banned by default in the absence of a compelling reason to "allow" it? That is horrendously Euro.
Deus
Almighty
Sebastian Castellanos
Member
It's not really if they should be banned, the question is which type of assault weapons should be banned.
John Henry Eden
President Of The Enclave
As the cheat code in Red Dead Redemption went: "I'm an American, I need guns"
Rin
Oathkeeper
Everyone should have the right to defend themselves against enemy soldiers or even the state. Not just assault rifles but explosives as well.
Explosives are easy enough to produce, even with few resources. Banning them won't change much except to keep them away from civilians and in the hands of criminals/terrorists. Military grade explosives are much safer for civilians anyway.
Some things like artillery and fighter jets require far too much training to be used efficiently by a criminal or rebel outfit. So not too important to keep it out of their hands.
I draw the line at biological weapons.
Explosives are easy enough to produce, even with few resources. Banning them won't change much except to keep them away from civilians and in the hands of criminals/terrorists. Military grade explosives are much safer for civilians anyway.
Some things like artillery and fighter jets require far too much training to be used efficiently by a criminal or rebel outfit. So not too important to keep it out of their hands.
I draw the line at biological weapons.
John Henry Eden
President Of The Enclave
though the blast yield of military grade explosives is far more destructive than any homemade bomb that could be made by an unskilled criminal.
Yes 'Assault weapons' & 'High-Capacity Magazines' have contributed greatly to the mass shooting crisis America is facing.
There have been multiple instances of where killers were taken down during a jamming or reload times of their guns, so thus having less capability means its more likely they can be stopped with fewer victims. And less rounds/less speed of rounds generally means less victims.
Gun Control has proven very effective at reducing the amount of Mass Shootings a Nation faces just look at Canada, Japan, Australia, or Most of Europe and none of them are facing the sorta of crisis that America is, though Australia did in the past face a similar crisis in frequency of it like America is. Do you know what they did? They passed serious gun control laws and mass shootings basically vanished compared to the amount they saw before. Such measures would be similarly effective in America as the majority of killers acquired their weapons thru legal means.
Finally the first amendment does grant require to guns to civilians, nothing written in it guarantees their right to every type of gun, thus imposing restrictions on the types of guns allowed to be sold & carried is fine.
There have been multiple instances of where killers were taken down during a jamming or reload times of their guns, so thus having less capability means its more likely they can be stopped with fewer victims. And less rounds/less speed of rounds generally means less victims.
Gun Control has proven very effective at reducing the amount of Mass Shootings a Nation faces just look at Canada, Japan, Australia, or Most of Europe and none of them are facing the sorta of crisis that America is, though Australia did in the past face a similar crisis in frequency of it like America is. Do you know what they did? They passed serious gun control laws and mass shootings basically vanished compared to the amount they saw before. Such measures would be similarly effective in America as the majority of killers acquired their weapons thru legal means.
Finally the first amendment does grant require to guns to civilians, nothing written in it guarantees their right to every type of gun, thus imposing restrictions on the types of guns allowed to be sold & carried is fine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert E Lee
Well-known member
Woot
Well-known member
The U.S. is a nation of >300,000,000 people, ~100,000,000 of them are gun owners, owning 270,000,000 guns.
And because we have a dramatic incident once a year where a dozen people die, you want to heavily restrict gun rights?
If we banned everything that killed a couple of people, everything would banned. A thousand people drown in swimming pools every year - do you really need a high capacity swimming pool that's more than 3 feet deep, you monster? And so on.
Whatever marginal reduction in deaths you get by making shooters change clips slightly more often could probably be counted on one hand and is not worth the restriction in freedom to so many millions.
The response to this from the other side is usually "But swimming pools aren't DESIGNED..." and we quickly get into this weird qualitative argument where they try to prove that guns are a special unique situation where the rights of gun owners can be dismissed for some special unique reason that wouldn't apply to anything else except guns. Which is very convenient for them.
By the way:
This chart counts anything with 4 or more deaths, I believe.
It's obviously heavily distorted by outliers. But you'd have the same problem with chart of people killed by vending machines and rollercoasters.
And because we have a dramatic incident once a year where a dozen people die, you want to heavily restrict gun rights?
If we banned everything that killed a couple of people, everything would banned. A thousand people drown in swimming pools every year - do you really need a high capacity swimming pool that's more than 3 feet deep, you monster? And so on.
Whatever marginal reduction in deaths you get by making shooters change clips slightly more often could probably be counted on one hand and is not worth the restriction in freedom to so many millions.
The response to this from the other side is usually "But swimming pools aren't DESIGNED..." and we quickly get into this weird qualitative argument where they try to prove that guns are a special unique situation where the rights of gun owners can be dismissed for some special unique reason that wouldn't apply to anything else except guns. Which is very convenient for them.
By the way:
This chart counts anything with 4 or more deaths, I believe.
It's obviously heavily distorted by outliers. But you'd have the same problem with chart of people killed by vending machines and rollercoasters.
Last edited by a moderator:
RoboMonkey
Active member
Honestly, I think America needs to learn that banning things never works (war on drugs).
Generally, I'm more of a fan of making things way harder to get than banning them all together. Because I think citizens should have a right to defend themselves against a very technologically advanced military like America's, but shouldn't be allowed to just get these weapons willy nilly. I have never really been a fan of banning stuff.
Sure, maybe there isn't any reason to have an assault rifle except for maybe self defense against a military take over, and the fact that they are super fun to shoot, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. That just means they're worthless most of the time.
Generally, I'm more of a fan of making things way harder to get than banning them all together. Because I think citizens should have a right to defend themselves against a very technologically advanced military like America's, but shouldn't be allowed to just get these weapons willy nilly. I have never really been a fan of banning stuff.
Sure, maybe there isn't any reason to have an assault rifle except for maybe self defense against a military take over, and the fact that they are super fun to shoot, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. That just means they're worthless most of the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
japan77
High Prince of Growth
I'm for reducing access to guns down a pistol, and requiring people whom get one to be medically checked to be Sane, Mentally stable, and have a military grade training on how to shoot one properly.
Reasoning being:
1.75% of all shootings in the US are accidental
2. Japan has similar measures regarding guns(they're actually harsher), and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.
Reasoning being:
1.75% of all shootings in the US are accidental
2. Japan has similar measures regarding guns(they're actually harsher), and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.
Robert E Lee
Well-known member
What freedom they enjoy isn't worth the lives it costs as your freedom ends where other people's rights begin in this case everyone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then you failed to give any practical or ration reason that we shouldn't do it besides claiming it won't work and using a chart that shows other nations that who have similar issues many of which also have high guns per capita, or have loose gun laws or both. You try using that an excuse to anyone who's actually been impacted by a mass shooting.
Once a year are you joking? If it was that low rate it wouldn't be a crisis.
372 that's slightly more than 1 mass shooting per DAY of the year, I think when 4 or more people are killed or hurt in a shooting every day, yes we should fucking do something about it rather than stick our hands up in the air and claim a plausible solution might work has no chance. (It's worked on local levels in America already)
Any weapon with the level of excessive killing power found in assault weapons should be subjected to such control laws & regulations, a pool isn't a weapon that's a terrible analogy. We already ban automatic weapons for Civilians for similar reasons, so assault weapons aren't immune.
We banned automatic weapons, and guess what no one has them anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status