Should assault weapons be banned?
- Thread starter Cenna
- Start date
- Status
Rin
Oathkeeper
There are parts of America with a lot of shootings but nobody reports them. This is the part where there are drug hustlers on every corner.
Idk if this is an urban myth, but all bullet wound injuries in the hospital will get reported to police and that will get a lot of people in trouble on both sides of a shootout. So any serious gang wars will have their own surgeons dealing with it and won't be reported. This is likely a blind spot in statistics.
A lot of these gang wars likely have submachine guns. And these are the kind of people who can import drugs and launder money, so they can likely get an AK-47 or an Uzi illegally. I still don't think banning helps.
I haven't checked the details but I suspect that many shooting reports include this, especially when someone has little to lose by reporting the incident. Idk how they would track whether the weapon was obtained legally.
If there was a law that allows you to shoot intruders with an assault rifle, I swear I'm making civilian turrets for my next startup. Safer than handling an assault rifle with minimal training.
Serial number of the weapon then checking the transaction history of it to see if it was legally to the person.
japan77
High Prince of Growth
de facto Banning of guns has worked in Japan, but there's not really another place in the world where you could argue that sort of situation has arose, even the yakuza doesn't have access to firearms. Mostly works due to a strong anti-smuggling situation, as ports are heavily monitored(probably also why japan's ban on drugs is also heavily effective)
Best Korea
Best Leader
^
the only reason banning of guns works in places like Australia, Japan, and England is because they are relatively isolated islands. Japan is tightly controlled and very hard to smuggle shit in because its a tiny island. Australia only has a few major port cities and anyone trying to smuggle shit in by landing on some random ass part of it is likely to die due to native fauna. England is an island with tightly controlled ports and highly managed space. Thats not even mentioning the issue of proliferation. Attempting to ban "assault weapons" or any other type of gun in america is logistically impossible. Hundreds of thousands of guns, the majority of which have been passed down between family members or bought from family/friends or at local gun shows/exchanges means there is no record of sale or ownership for the majority. So it would be almost impossible to actually go take or remove guns that have been banned. Even the assault weapons ban of 94' wasnt retroactive. Any assault weapons covered under that ban that were produced prior to 94' are still legal. There are 6 or 7 fully automatic gatling guns from the vietnam war that are fully legal that get passed around for a few hundred grand between gun enthusiasts because they are still legal. Also, you can legally purchase automatic weapons if you have the proper qualifications: an ffl class 3 firearms dealer license, extensive background checks, and depending on the weapon a 10-50,000$ stamp from the federal government that must be renewed yearly. Coincidentally, a legally owned fully automatic weapon has never been used in a crime. And the "assault weapons" used in mass shootings that people are always trying to ban are no different from normal wood stock guns... they're just black with tactical railings instead of wood.
I know all this because I live in Louisiana, I have been raised with guns all my life and am in fact a gun owner. We have multiple guns, including rifles, handguns, and shotguns. We even have a fully automatic submachinegun. My uncle has a ffl license that we can use to purchase silencers and full auto guns legally. I plan to get my concealed carry permit sometime in the next 6 months or so. Guess what, none of our guns have ever been used in a crime or mass shooting because, who knew, guns don't kill people. People kill people.
the only reason banning of guns works in places like Australia, Japan, and England is because they are relatively isolated islands. Japan is tightly controlled and very hard to smuggle shit in because its a tiny island. Australia only has a few major port cities and anyone trying to smuggle shit in by landing on some random ass part of it is likely to die due to native fauna. England is an island with tightly controlled ports and highly managed space. Thats not even mentioning the issue of proliferation. Attempting to ban "assault weapons" or any other type of gun in america is logistically impossible. Hundreds of thousands of guns, the majority of which have been passed down between family members or bought from family/friends or at local gun shows/exchanges means there is no record of sale or ownership for the majority. So it would be almost impossible to actually go take or remove guns that have been banned. Even the assault weapons ban of 94' wasnt retroactive. Any assault weapons covered under that ban that were produced prior to 94' are still legal. There are 6 or 7 fully automatic gatling guns from the vietnam war that are fully legal that get passed around for a few hundred grand between gun enthusiasts because they are still legal. Also, you can legally purchase automatic weapons if you have the proper qualifications: an ffl class 3 firearms dealer license, extensive background checks, and depending on the weapon a 10-50,000$ stamp from the federal government that must be renewed yearly. Coincidentally, a legally owned fully automatic weapon has never been used in a crime. And the "assault weapons" used in mass shootings that people are always trying to ban are no different from normal wood stock guns... they're just black with tactical railings instead of wood.
I know all this because I live in Louisiana, I have been raised with guns all my life and am in fact a gun owner. We have multiple guns, including rifles, handguns, and shotguns. We even have a fully automatic submachinegun. My uncle has a ffl license that we can use to purchase silencers and full auto guns legally. I plan to get my concealed carry permit sometime in the next 6 months or so. Guess what, none of our guns have ever been used in a crime or mass shooting because, who knew, guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rin
Oathkeeper
Smuggling things into the US is a lot easier thanks to drug cartels. Those guys have used a 747 or even a makeshift submarine - and dumped it right after.
Ironically, drug dealers are rarely gun runners because the legalization of weapons makes it unprofitable to smuggle weapons in.
Ironically, drug dealers are rarely gun runners because the legalization of weapons makes it unprofitable to smuggle weapons in.
Yeah, but in many real shootings, you can't actually catch the shooter. I don't think they can get a serial number off a bullet.
True but data presented for ones caught or killed in shoot out showed was largely legal weapons obtained legally.
Best Korea
Best Leader
It is true that over 80% of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally, but only something like 15% of mass shootings in the last 15 years were actually committed with "assault weapons". Although, the few incidents where assault weapons/high capacity magazines(the actual deciding factor, which can just as easily be placed in a non "assault" weapon) tended to be deadlier, averaging 20% more injuries and more deaths. Something I think you're either ignoring or not realizing is that mass shootings are less than 1% of total gun crime, and less than 1% of gun deaths. And the statistics for whether or not a gun used in other gun crimes was legally obtained or not is VASTLY different from mass shootings. Less than 5% of gun crime is committed with legally owned guns.
Another point, the demographic for the majority of gun crime and mass shootings tends to be very different. Most gun crime is committed by repeat offenders and convicted criminals, many of which have previous firearm-involving crimes. On the other hand, mass shootings tend to be committed by people with relatively clean records, generally lacking felony convictions(because that would mean they cant legally get a gun). Also, more than 61% of mass shooters have some form of mental illness, which in a reasonable world, would have precluded them from legally acquiring guns. A mass shooter tends to be someone who snaps, goes temporarily insane, is already suffering from some form of insanity, or decides they want to get on the news by killing people(probably also insanity). And over 60% of mass shootings end in the shooters suicide, which means they don't care if the crime can be traced back to them. Also, over 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites, 16% by blacks, and 9% by asians with the rest being latino, native american, or other demographics. This actually lines up pretty well with population demographics in our country if you disregard the fact that asians are 250% more likely to commit a mass shooting, based on the %committed vs % of US population. Banning guns or assault weapons isn't gonna have a noticeable effect on gun crime, and it may or may not have a noticeable effect on mass shootings. It's generally unknown whether the people who commit mass shootings would be able to acquire illegal guns or not, although i'm of the opinion that it isn't very fucking hard, they can probably manage it. On the other hand, simply increasing the limitations on purchasing guns by not allowing those with mental illness to buy them and having every state follow the 3-5 day waiting period/perform background checks(hint: every state doesn't do that) would probably have a far greater impact on mass shootings than banning "assault" weapons.
Also, cite some fucking sources
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/02/01/170872321/study-most-gun-deaths-happen-outside-of-mass-shootings
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/most-guns-mass-shootings-obtained-legally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
I did earlier in the thread, and I was referencing what I was already citing.
I am quite aware, however dealing with more common issues takes a different approach naturally, I don't think banning assault weapons will solve all gun violence, I do however think it's an important step for public safety, so it should still be done even if it's only a small% of the crimes; we started multiple wars in the mideast in the name of defeating terrorism to protect Americans which are far less frequent than mass shootings, so frankly banning Assault weapons seems very reasonably by comparison to protect public safety.
That is quite possibly true that it would impact it more, and I wouldn't be opposed to it. Too bad the government is banned from researching the effectiveness of different types of gun control & their impact on different types of crime/deaths/suicides or anything, so because of the NRA's pressure we can't really know which is better to address it, so I am in favor of both.
Last edited by a moderator:
Best Korea
Best Leader
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
I would like this to be read because I share this opinion
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dcfQAKOTc0UCvFN9UZCfcq_nj8EKd1Ru3mBUEmo57hU/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dcfQAKOTc0UCvFN9UZCfcq_nj8EKd1Ru3mBUEmo57hU/edit?usp=sharing
Partial but not entirely and hell no lol. I am saying that's how politicians try to justify it.You actually think the wars in the middle east were over terrorism? Or reasonable?
Hmm it's more valid argument than a lot make, but for that purpose a pistol is generally plenty. But it's also flawed because it assumes the mugger wouldn't just shot you before trying to make a demand and then taking your stuff.
I'd argue something like Tasers would be better fit to serve that purpose of eliminating force.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status