Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[M14 Shooter]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR
2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Those that push gun control believe that the state should have a monopoly on force. They know this cannot happen so long as there is an armed citizenry, and so they take steps toward the eventual disarmament of same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

I'm sure you believe the same thing about the right to have sex as you please.
Your contrivance is, at best, silly.

Well no.

I thought not.
At this point, you really have nothing worth saying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The absurd notion came from you folks.
That having a gun to shoot kids in the face is somehow a "right".

No.... that's -your- strawman.
At this point, its pretty clear all you want to do here is troll.

It's only "trolling" to you because like those of your ilk you feel that gun ownership should be completely unbridled.

Another strawman, and proof positive that you're here only to troll.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.

So what? Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire. FAR more. If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle? Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.



Again, makes no sense. Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else? A free press is a right too. By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail. It's patently ridiculous!

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.

Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement. WHY is it apples and oranges? Because you say so doesn't cut it. Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.

Grasping at straws...

1. Even with the skewed data we receive...

You cannot show that the data is "skewed".
What you CAN show is that the data does not in any wa support a ban on 'assault weapons', especially given that handguns cannot be banned.

Quite the opposite, the lapse in the assault weapons ban, made the country much more dangerous.

This is absolutely false; the number and the percentage of murders comitted with ;assault weapons' has FALLEN since the lapse of the 1994 ban.

2. You are criminally responsible for your own right.

Given that you have no right to commit a crime, your statement here can have no meaning.

3. That's probably because we have different ideas just what gun ownership should entail. Personally? I don't have a problem with home and business protection. That's what I think guns SHOULD be for. You folks seem to think guns should be used to start revolts and settle disputes.

More straw.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning 'assault weapons' in general, and the AR-15 in particular, should not make sense to anyone for 2 indisputable reasons:

- Given Miller and Heller, the AR-15 is about the best example of a firearm protected by the constitution
- After machineguns, 'assault weapons' are the class of weapon used least for crime, especially murder

 

[eflatminor]

It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone.

So what? Far more people are killed in car collisions than due to gun fire. FAR more. If people should be, as you suggested, criminally liable for another's use of their "dangerous" guns, how is it logical that shouldn't be the case for the far more dangerous vehicle? Your argument of "purpose" makes no sense.



Again, makes no sense. Just because something is a right, people must be criminally liable for the actions of someone else? A free press is a right too. By your logic, if disturbed criminal reads a newspaper article that results in him taking action that kills another person, we should put the journalist that wrote the piece in jail. It's patently ridiculous!

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.

Again, you say things with no evidence, logic or reason attached to the statement. WHY is it apples and oranges? Because you say so doesn't cut it. Because one is a 'right' has NOTHING to do with it, nor does what you perceive to be the purpose of a firearm.

Grasping at straws...

1. Even with the skewed data we receive, thanks to the efforts of the NRA, the data does NOT show that "Far more" people die due to auto collisions.

Best check your trousers. They're smoking.

2010 motor vehicle roadway deaths: 32,885
2010 homicides by firearm: 11,078

And there is a reason for that. The Auto industry was actually required to make cars safer, by the government.

And let's see how that's working out:

2010 motor vehicle roadway deaths: 32,885
2011 motor vehicle roadway deaths: 34,267
2012 motor vehicle roadway deaths: 34,767

That said, cars have gotten safer over time, obviously. Any chance that had to do with consumer demand for safety amid improvements in technology? Naaawww...must be the central planners!

Nothing like that has been done with guns. Quite the opposite, the lapse in the assault weapons ban, made the country much more dangerous.

Well, let's look at facts. According to the BJS,  "The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010"

But hey, if it "feels" more dangerous, that's all that really matters, right?

2. You are criminally responsible for your own right. I don't see a problem with that. Gun ownership should not be an "industry". After the original sale..that should be it.

Then by your own reasoning, we should put journalists in jail if someone reads their words and ends up hurting another. Insane.

3. That's probably because we have different ideas just what gun ownership should entail. Personally? I don't have a problem with home and business protection. That's what I think guns SHOULD be for.

And a woman walking home after the late shift? Or is gun control giving a 120lb woman the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist?

You folks seem to think guns should be used to start revolts and settle disputes. There's the disconnect.

As long as someone isn't hurting another nor taking what doesn't belong to him, what he thinks a firearm should be used for is none of your business. How about you focus on the ACTIONS of evil people instead of what you suppose law abiding citizens are THINKING?

Just a thought.

 

[KevinWestern]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

I share your distrust of the government's sincerity if that helps.

As does, incidently, ALL of the REAL left.

Yea, you always have to ask questions when the gov't pushes extraordinarily hard to "fix" a relative non-issue, or when the gov't ignores a very real issue.

The gov't's quick to push this sweeping assault weapons ban despite there being less than 30 people annually murdered by "assault weapons" in the United States (350 for rifles in total), yet seem to completely ignore the fact that GMOs are being linked to some very serious health implications (and might be responsible for countless cancer deaths nationwide). Obama even signed recently the "Monsanto Protection Act" which basically removes from Monsanto all liability for damages caused by their "food".

I mean these guys are something else. F***ing pricks.

.

 

[eflatminor]

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west

That would be too bad. The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.

You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000. Philadelphia? 21.4!

The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.

Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870. Hmm. That doesn't sound so 'wild'.

Anyway, facts are good for the soul. Try 'em sometime.

 

[whitehall]

The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly. It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about? It's obvious that ignorant lefties and the sissie element of the left don't know the difference between automatic and semi automatic or a bolt action vs a lever action or else they would try to ban all semi-automatic weapons and not just so-called "assault rifles".

 

[M14 Shooter]

The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly.

Not really - they believe the state should have a monopoly on force; banning 'assault weapons' is nothing but a means to that end.

It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about?

Incorrect. It is perfectly legal to own a machingun under federal law.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You go with that...

The courts, the law, and common sense suggest otherwise, but you go with that.

Back to your original suggestion, you still haven't answered if it's okay to put you in jail when someone steals your car and causes an accident. Cool with that???

It's never been the purpose of a car to kill anyone. And having a car is not a right.

So..it's sort of apples and oranges.

It has often been the purpose of a car to kill people.
Those times when a driver gets behind the wheel with the intent to drive at speed into another or others.
It has happened.
A car, a gun, a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat even a roll of scotch tape are all inanimate objects that can be used as evcective means of delivering death and destruction to the innocent.
The innocent are protected from all the weapons listed above in the hands of wrongdoers by what?
The right to bear arms.

Let's try this: A drunk gets into a car. While his intent is not to kill, his chances of doing so increase significantly. If the drunk driver strikes, and kills, someone, perhaps we should make both the auto manufacturer and the producer of the alcohol beverage consumed responsible.
Hey! Let's just ban alcohol!

 

[gallantwarrior]

The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly. It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about? It's obvious that ignorant lefties and the sissie element of the left don't know the difference between automatic and semi automatic or a bolt action vs a lever action or else they would try to ban all semi-automatic weapons and not just so-called "assault rifles".

Fact is, ignorant lefties would prefer banning ALL firearms. They are that frightened. Government lefties are smart enough to know that an all-out ban on all types of firearms would definitely not fly, but by taking out certain types incrementally, they will eventually get all of them banned. As each additional type of firearm is banned, there will be an additional uptick in firearms crimes, proving that we need more gun control laws. Liberal logic will dictate even more firearms be taken out of the hands of citizens.

 

[whitehall]

The dirty little secret is that ignorant lefties hate certain weapons for no other reason than they are ugly.

Not really - they believe the state should have a monopoly on force; banning 'assault weapons' is nothing but a means to that end.

It's against federal law to possess a fully automatic weapon or a weapon with an automatic selector switch like the M-16 so what's all the fuss about?

Incorrect. It is perfectly legal to own a machingun under federal law.

Yeah I left out the fact that federal law requires a ton of paperwork, fingerprints, whopping deposit and constant surveillance to obtain a fully automatic firearm. You missed the point. The ignorant left and their vocal sissie hysterical base don't know the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic and they don't give a damn. Everything is political to the smart left and everything is a crisis to the ignorant left. Meanwhile the left leaning media keeps the pot boiling with ignorant and biased stories

 

[KevinWestern]

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west

That would be too bad. The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.

Some areas of Chicago (I live and work in the city).

The thing with Chicago is that we have extremely high crime rates in very isolated and specific parts of the city. So long as you can avoid those areas, the city is actually very safe. There's virtually ZERO violence in the area where people are making $40k+/year. I've been here 5 years and have not witnessed a single crime.

We don't have a gun problem in America, we have a poverty problem. You solve that and I guarantee the gun homicides will fall off a cliff.

So if Obama was sincere at curbing gun violence, it would make rational sense to do things like actually trying to prevent another great recession, and maybe prosecute a SINGLE Wall Street Exec for the illegal fraud that was taking place under their watch. There's thousands of emails implicating these guys, yet they've been (to date) left untouched. Why?

Guess that $1 million in 2008 Campaign donations from Goldman Sachs really paid off...

.




.

 

[eflatminor]

Some areas of Chicago (I live and work in the city).

The thing with Chicago is that we have extremely high crime rates in very isolated and specific parts of the city. So long as you can avoid those areas, the city is actually very safe. There's virtually ZERO violence in the area where people are making $40k+/year. I've been here 5 years and have not witnessed a single crime.

True. I lived in Bucktown for several years. Never saw any violent crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Banning 'assault weapons' in general, and the AR-15 in particular, should not make sense to anyone for 2 indisputable reasons:

- Given Miller and Heller, the AR-15 is about the best example of a firearm protected by the constitution
- After machineguns, 'assault weapons' are the class of weapon used least for crime, especially murder

Exactly and there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle that is available to the general public.

As I have said umpteen times, there is no difference between my Ruger Mini 14 semiauto .223 rifle and a Bushmaster AR15 semiauto .223 rifle.

So to say the former is acceptable but the latter is not is idiocy.

 

[Spoonman]

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple. There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue

 

[Skull Pilot]

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple. There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue

It's a feel good reactionary thing so that a bunch of self important corrupt power hungry politicians can tell themselves they actually achieved something.

Rifles and so called assault rifles were used in about 2.5% of murders in 2011.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

[gallantwarrior]

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple. There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue

If you recall, initial press reports about Newton stated that the AR-15 was found in the trunk of the car. The left-controlled media walked that back quickly enough because it didn't fit the narrative or support the desired outrage directed against "assault rifles". Americans are just not ready to give up their handguns, though.

 

[eflatminor]

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple. There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue

It's a feel good reactionary thing so that a bunch of self important corrupt power hungry politicians can tell themselves they actually achieved something.

Rifles and so called assault rifles were used in about 2.5% of murders in 2011.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

And not only has the number of rifles used to murder been declining for at least 5 years straight, in each of the last five years, shotguns have been used more frequently to murder. You know shotguns...our VP,s choice for protection.

The hypocracy is overwhelming.