Gun Control

I say no, there are people who use guns for self-defense and there are people who kill others with guns. There is no telling what someone will do with a gun. Gun Control is rather useless because people who wanted to kill someone with a gun will just find another way to kill them. Making Gun control more strict isn't going to stop the amount of casualties happening in the U.S. It's the fact that murderers are only put in jail for ___ amount of years. If the consequence would be execution for killing someone, only then would there be less casualties.

Overall, Gun Control won't do anything but keep guns away from people, nothing else. Consequences need to be more extreme if people want to stop the casualty rate.

Pez55 said:

I say no, there are people who use guns for self-defense and there are people who kill others with guns. There is no telling what someone will do with a gun. Gun Control is rather useless because people who wanted to kill someone with a gun will just find another way to kill them.

Click to expand...

Why would people need guns for self-defense if nobody would ever threaten them with a gun? There's a reason why the saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight" exists. If stricter laws were in place to make sure random, unstable civilians don't have fire arms, no one would needs guns for protection, because they would not be threatened by them.

Even if a murderer found another way to kill someone (which obviously many do), it wouldn't be as effective as a bullet to the head, and any physical grapple between two people can go either way. A murderer with a loaded gun is more dangerous than a murderer with his bare hands.

Pez55 said:

Overall, Gun Control won't do anything but keep guns away from people, nothing else. Consequences need to be more extreme if people want to stop the casualty rate.

Click to expand...

Well, currently only 15 states in the U.S.A. have banned capital punishment, and although that may not be the price for a single murder, it is an option. Also, life in prison in the U.S. means just that (if I'm not mistaken, it could be another country). In Canada, a life sentence is 30 years, and that is the standard punishment for murder. How much more 'extreme' can a punishment get than 30 years in a cell?

Making it 40 years wouldn't really change much, because if you think about it, if someone committed a crime when they were 25 years old, they'll be 55 when they finally leave prison. My point is that they will already be well past their youth, and if better gun control laws were in place, they would be old, weaker than before, and not permitted to bear a firearm.

Basically, with better firearm control laws, there wouldn't be a need to increase crime punishment, because there would be less crime (or less serious crime at least).

Nysyarc said:

Why would people need guns for self-defense if nobody would ever threaten them with a gun? There's a reason why the saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight" exists. If stricter laws were in place to make sure random, unstable civilians don't have fire arms, no one would needs guns for protection, because they would not be threatened by them.

Click to expand...

Point-blank, this is impossible. You can ban and destroy ever gun in existence, and people would still get guns. Want proof? Drugs. Drugs carry stiff penalties that range from hefty fines to years in prison, yet they are quite easy to get. If someone has the intention of committing a crime, and they need a gun, they are suddenly creating a market for black market weapons. Much like how prohibition was probably the most successful time for criminals wanting to sell drugs, a prohibition on guns will create a huge black market for smuggled weapons.

Before going you say "well it works on other countries," look at our country. We are the third largest country in the world, with some of the most open boarders. If I wanted to, I could go to Mexico tomorrow and come back without ever going through customs. Daily, we have an average traffic of 500,000 people coming from Mexico. If you completely ban guns, which would mean police should lose their guns too otherwise you are setting yourself up to being oppressed, then gun migration would be upped exponentially. The rest of your argument is invalid because you are basing it on an impossibility. It doesn't matter your stance on guns, but outright banning all guns will never happen.

Also, the reason we have the second amendment is because of Thomas Jefferson. He included this and said that should the government ever get too powerful that we should overthrow them violently.

Crimson King said:

Point-blank, this is impossible.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with the use of the word impossible, because although the scenario you provided would be very likely to be the case, it is not the only possibility. Nor is my scenario 100% impossible, just ridiculously unlikely.

Besides, I never advocated banning all guns. I said firearm ownership laws should be stricter. I live in Canada so I don't know first-hand what the situation is like, because next to no one up here carries personal firearms. So really this debate isn't for me at all, nor does it seem like much of a debate if the only options are to keep things the way they are, or to make things worse.

Again, removing/heavily restricting firearms will only affect law-abiding citizens. If people plan to use a weapon to commit a crime, they will get a gun. All tougher laws will do is make those who legally own and operate firearms into criminals, which is not what needs to be done. What needs to be done? Dunno, but I rather not have lawmakers in DC, who have their own personal bodyguards, deciding that.

Nysyarc said:

Why would people need guns for self-defense if nobody would ever threaten them with a gun?

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters wether or not people are getting threatened by guns. I think people would rather have a gun for defense than anything else. Plus, as Crimson King said, murderers will still get guns somehow to kill people, no matter how strict the gun laws are.

Nysyarc said:

How much more 'extreme' can a punishment get than 30 years in a cell?

Click to expand...

When I said more extreme I meant the death penalty for taking someone's life. Murderers should be executed for killing people. If this was done, people would most likely think twice before murdering someone.

Its not the average person looking for a gun it's the average criminal. So the laws should be more strict.

BOB SAGET! said:

Its not the average person looking for a gun it's the average criminal. So the laws should be more strict.

Click to expand...

Why would you think criminals would acquire guns legally? That is all that gun control/laws actually affect: legal gun ownership.

People who go through the process of acquiring a gun are less likely to commit a crime since the gun is registered in their name, ballistics and forensics can link to most types of guns, and then, the police just have to work out your alibi.

I didn't mean people with criminal records but people who are going to commit a crime using a gun.

Pez55 said:

Plus, as Crimson King said, murderers will still get guns somehow to kill people, no matter how strict the gun laws are.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the point I made in my last post. If that's the case, then what are we debating?

Apparently making stricter laws wouldn't make a difference, and neither would banning them outright, and in fact that could make it worse. Obviously making the laws less strict wouldn't help... handing out free guns to every civilian would only make matters worse.

So then the only option we're left with is to leave things as they are, which isn't exactly a 'solution', but it seems like any other options lead to worse circumstances.

BOB SAGET! said:

I didn't mean people with criminal records but people who are going to commit a crime using a gun.

Click to expand...

What?

I have no idea what you mean.

Crimson King said:

What?

I have no idea what you mean.

Click to expand...

First off all, take it easy man! Im a lot younger than all of you. Anyway, say someone is planning a robbery. The strict gun laws wouldn't make it easy to get a gun. If he doesn't get a gun, the robbery might not happen. If it's easy to get a gun, it's easy to start the robbery.

BOB SAGET! said:

First off all, take it easy man! Im a lot younger than all of you. Anyway, say someone is planning a robbery. The strict gun laws wouldn't make it easy to get a gun. If he doesn't get a gun, the robbery might not happen. If it's easy to get a gun, it's easy to start the robbery.

Click to expand...

1. I'm 13, which is a lot younger than a lot of people here, age really has nothing to do with anything.

2. People that want a gun can get them illegally fairly easily... Someone who's going to rob somewhere isn't going to go by a gun legally. >_>

S.O.L.I.D. said:

1. I'm 13, which is a lot younger than a lot of people here, age really has nothing to do with anything.

2. People that want a gun can get them illegally fairly easily... Someone who's going to rob somewhere isn't going to go by a gun legally. >_>

Click to expand...

im 13 too. and true people can get guns the illegal way. but making it easier to gain acess to a gun can make it easier for gun related crimes to happen.

Look, what I'm saying is that to people planning robberies, it isn't going to matter what the law says, because they can acquire them by bypassing the law and getting them illegally.

Why does everyone link Gun Violence to the Legality of Gun Ownership?


Australlia banned guns once, then after only one year armed robbery went up 44%p
Then people who got illegal or maintained illegal guns helped raise the homocide rate up 3.2%
Just random gun assaults went up 8.6%

That's after one year.
Gun Control does not solve gun violence.

Maybe if we'd stop going to war for resources, power and control, stop inflating the dollar even though we are in debt money, and if we'd raise our influence on the life of our people instead of partaking in a fear-inducing self-protecting government, people would be less likely to shoot up their schools, rob banks, mug people on the street, etc.

But instead, we rather approach a symptom with a poison.
We'd rather put out a fire by tossing handfuls of woodchips into it.

The consistant fact is, every time we ban guns, violence jumps!


Also, there was already topics on this, am I wrong?
Source on statistics: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Personally, I am much more concerned with breaking the glass ceiling of changing the Bill of Rights.
For this reason, many democrats will not cross the line on gun ownership, because it is a part of the Bill of Rights.
Before logic and ethics can ever be discussed, the legality issues must first be confronted, and in the United States, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what are government doctrine has said about handgun ownership and bans. This can only be changed once the members of this ruling have retired and the issue is brought again to the Supreme Court, or by Amendment to change something in the Bill of Rights. This will not happen for the same reason the Flag Burning amendment has not been passed.

CRASHiC said:

Personally, I am much more concerned with breaking the glass ceiling of changing the Bill of Rights.
For this reason, many democrats will not cross the line on gun ownership, because it is a part of the Bill of Rights.
Before logic and ethics can ever be discussed, the legality issues must first be confronted, and in the United States, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what are government doctrine has said about handgun ownership and bans. This can only be changed once the members of this ruling have retired and the issue is brought again to the Supreme Court, or by Amendment to change something in the Bill of Rights. This will not happen for the same reason the Flag Burning amendment has not been passed.

Click to expand...

Let's look at the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
We have seen in our country's past that it has ruled against the average citizen owning a gun. The clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971)

Additionally, there are handgun bans in various cities in the U.S. I would say that these would seem to "violate" the 2nd amendment and yet we have these restrictions.

Besides, limitations to amendments are common. 1st amendment example (free speech) You can't just get up in a theater and yell fire because it would cause panic and it would infringe on the safety of others.

I don't think we need to have a debate on whether or not it is possible to see BIG gun control changes. I also don't believe we need to see the 2nd amendment get thrown out in order to see big changes.

Crimson King said:
"Also, the reason we have the second amendment is because of Thomas Jefferson. He included this and said that should the government ever get too powerful that we should overthrow them violently."

You've been reading the Federalist Papers, haven't you? Our country has been around for over 200 years. We haven't needed to "get violent" due to a corrupt government and I don't see it happening any time soon. I think that this is a weak argument because our country was built on people having the ability to change the government PEACEFULLY. Additionally, we have a multitude of checks and balances on everything and I don't foresee a government becoming tyrannical any time soon. The only thing I could see is A MINUTE CHANCE of a Hitler-esque kind of guy come into office but even then, we would kick him out asap. After a lot of reading about past and present presidents, I believe we are at a time where we are more likely to hold our presidents accountable.

Lol too lazy to multiquote.

Edit: I'll come back tomorrow and add more to this debate about gun control. I'll probably write my senior thesis about the topic so I have a large amount of knowledge on the subject. But it's after 3 am so I need sleep X_X

However, a personal interpretation means next to none when compared to the Supreme Court Rulings, and Hand gun ban challenged will be ruled unconstitutional because of the District of Colombia Hand Gun Ban rulling. (I'm afraid I don't know the official name). The chance of obtaining the republican vote or the moderate democrat vote it difficult to come by.

Besides, limitations to amendments are common. 1st amendment example (free speech) You can't just get up in a theater and yell fire because it would cause panic and it would infringe on the safety of others.

Click to expand...

That is stated in separate article of the constitution, which states that the purpose of laws is to protect the rights of individual, as long as the said right does not infringe upon the rights of others. We do limit gun ownership, we limit automatic weapons, because they have no self defense or hunting purpose, and they infringe on people's right to live more than other guns. Limiting based on a clause of the constitution and changing the constitution are two separate things, changing the constitution being a near impossible process, especially for something within the bill of rights.

My personal belief is that a slight system of gun control should be put in place. The system would involve regulation of fire arms to the extent of allowing only your basic handguns and your basic hunting rifle. The reasons?
1. Handguns are perfectly enough protection in terms of concealed weapons. Even if you're a terrible shot, you're going to be able to take the opponent down without the use of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. It's unnecessary to give anything past the basics for personal protection.
2. A basic hunting rifle is all that's needed for hunting. No need to kill a dear with an assault rifle.
3. While crime would continue even with a law such as this, it's idiotic to say it wouldn't make it much harder to get a weapon that could be used for something such as mass murder. Acquiring a gun illegally in the above way would still most likely be easy, but that will happen no matter how gun control is done.

My personal opinion (And way I suppose) would also involve regulating who can get guns (no one convicted of a violent crime, no one proved mentally incapable, and no one who has been diagnosed psychopathic or sociopathic).

So yes, I advocate a form of gun control. But not just taking them away. Simply giving people guns to protect themselves and if they wish hunt, but nothing over-qualified for those jobs.

Edit: I'd also like to address the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mentality. Obviously people kill people. But the tool surely helps. If you actually think killing with a rock is as easy as killing with a gun, then you're an idiot. Even comparing gun types, a gun such as a non automatic handgun is much harder to kill with than a automatic handgun, or something such as a semi-auto rifle.

Neisan said:

My personal belief is that a slight system of gun control should be put in place. The system would involve regulation of fire arms to the extent of allowing only your basic handguns and your basic hunting rifle. The reasons?

Click to expand...

I would have avoided using "My personal Belief" if you came in here in a more active voice I think your post would pack more of a punch in persuading me to think differently.

1. Handguns are perfectly enough protection in terms of concealed weapons. Even if you're a terrible shot, you're going to be able to take the opponent down without the use of a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. It's unnecessary to give anything past the basics for personal protection.
2. A basic hunting rifle is all that's needed for hunting. No need to kill a dear with an assault rifle.

Click to expand...

Points 1-2 sound like an arbitrary restriction on assault weapons, whats your reasoning for this? Also how would this type of regulation benefit us?

3. While crime would continue even with a law such as this, it's idiotic to say it wouldn't make it much harder to get a weapon that could be used for something such as mass murder. Acquiring a gun illegally in the above way would still most likely be easy, but that will happen no matter how gun control is done.

Click to expand...

Criminals will be getting guns regardless as you say, because you're not attacking the real problem here. You can't stop deaths by restricting which guns are accessible, especially arbitrary restrictions like you've proposed.

So yes, I advocate a form of gun control. But not just taking them away. Simply giving people guns to protect themselves and if they wish hunt, but nothing over-qualified for those jobs.

Click to expand...

Why can't I use over qualified guns to shoot a deer? Where's you're reasoning for this.

Edit: I'd also like to address the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mentality. Obviously people kill people. But the tool surely helps. If you actually think killing with a rock is as easy as killing with a gun, then you're an idiot. Even comparing gun types, a gun such as a non automatic handgun is much harder to kill with than a automatic handgun, or something such as a semi-auto rifle.

Click to expand...

You're taking that quote and looking at it at only face value, it's meant to describe the real problem, which isn't guns it's a problem with human nature. Crime usually surges when there's "bad times." regulating assault weapons doesn't stop this or even slow it down, it just puts regular citizens at a disadvantage.

Aesir said:

I would have avoided using "My personal Belief" if you came in here in a more active voice I think your post would pack more of a punch in persuading me to think differently.




Points 1-2 sound like an arbitrary restriction on assault weapons, whats your reasoning for this? Also how would this type of regulation benefit us?
The benefits would be a overall safety for both the general public, and largely law enforcement.

Criminals will be getting guns regardless as you say, because you're not attacking the real problem here. You can't stop deaths by restricting which guns are accessible, especially arbitrary restrictions like you've proposed.
Like I said, deaths will be there if you add gun control, take it away, or anything else. But with proper regulation of who owns them, like I said, the amount of deaths and injuries can be decreased. Obviously you'll still have your gang shootings, but the amount of accidental deaths would decrease, and the amount of injuries (instead of deaths) would increase, due to the lethality of the legal weapons.


Why can't I use over qualified guns to shoot a deer? Where's you're reasoning for this.
There isn't a reason to. You can hunt for sport, fun, or food with a regular gun. Where's your reasoning for using an over qualified gun?



You're taking that quote and looking at it at only face value, it's meant to describe the real problem, which isn't guns it's a problem with human nature. Crime usually surges when there's "bad times." regulating assault weapons doesn't stop this or even slow it down, it just puts regular citizens at a disadvantage.
By "bad times" I'm assuming you also mean regular citizens turning to crime for stealing and such. Well your average citizen who had the idea of stealing most likely won't go through the steps needed to acquire an illegal weapon. It would no longer be as simple as going to a gun shop, or having a friend buy it for you. It would most likely discourage and stop most average "bad time" crimes committed by a normal person. You'd still have to deal with a regular handgun, but a regular handgun won't kill a person without firing multiple shots, which would take quite a bit of time (allowing the person to possibly get help, or the assailant apprehended).

Click to expand...

My responses in red.

The benefits would be a overall safety for both the general public, and largely law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Explain you keep dodging the question, how would your provisions provide over all safety? you're only apply an arbitrary regulation on assault weapons.

Like I said, deaths will be there if you add gun control, take it away, or anything else. But with proper regulation of who owns them, like I said, the amount of deaths and injuries can be decreased. Obviously you'll still have your gang shootings, but the amount of accidental deaths would decrease, and the amount of injuries (instead of deaths) would increase, due to the lethality of the legal weapons.

Click to expand...

As far as I understand the general public would not have access to assault weapons but rather your basic fire arms. If this is the case then how do you propose deaths would decrease? You have not added any sort of provision on negligence which is one of the top reasons people die from guns.

There isn't a reason to. You can hunt for sport, fun, or food with a regular gun. Where's your reasoning for using an over qualified gun?

Click to expand...

It's simply a better tool for hunting then a basic fire arm is. In the off chance I miss I don't have to wait to reload.

By "bad times" I'm assuming you also mean regular citizens turning to crime for stealing and such. Well your average citizen who had the idea of stealing most likely won't go through the steps needed to acquire an illegal weapon. It would no longer be as simple as going to a gun shop, or having a friend buy it for you. It would most likely discourage and stop most average "bad time" crimes committed by a normal person. You'd still have to deal with a regular handgun, but a regular handgun won't kill a person without firing multiple shots, which would take quite a bit of time (allowing the person to possibly get help, or the assailant apprehended).

Click to expand...

What? a regular hand gun is very capable of killing someone, a shot to the head or the chest will likely be lethal. Almost any part of your chest or mid section is a lethal area to be shot in.

Also about acquiring the actual gun;

Regular citizens can easily get a gun illegally, it's all dependant on their location and who they know. So it's kind of unrealistic to assume every citizen wouldn't try to go through these steps if they option was available.

Legally acquiring guns is where you're wrong you said here:

My personal opinion (And way I suppose) would also involve regulating who can get guns (no one convicted of a violent crime, no one proved mentally incapable, and no one who has been diagnosed psychopathic or sociopathic).

Click to expand...

Exactly how would this stop an average citizen from acquiring a gun legally?

Aesir said:

Explain you keep dodging the question, how would your provisions provide over all safety? you're only apply an arbitrary regulation on assault weapons.



As far as I understand the general public would not have access to assault weapons but rather your basic fire arms. If this is the case then how do you propose deaths would decrease? You have not added any sort of provision on negligence which is one of the top reasons people die from guns.
Deaths, not deaths caused by negligence. Also, source on your last sentence?
Deaths would decrease to due your violent killings decreasing. As I said before, a handgun is a lot less lethal than your average gun. More on that later.


It's simply a better tool for hunting then a basic fire arm is. In the off chance I miss I don't have to wait to reload.
That can also be applied to crime, and your above point, but I won't go in to that. As for that, you're a proponent for keeping them because you can't get your aim right?



What? a regular hand gun is very capable of killing someone, a shot to the head or the chest will likely be lethal. Almost any part of your chest or mid section is a lethal area to be shot in.
A shot to the head is a hard shot to make to a moving or fighting target. Most people with quite a bit of training can't do that. A chest shot is easier yes, but the lethality is based on the caliber of your gun and where you hit. A shot to the spine will cripple, but most likely not kill. It takes a dead middle chest shot to kill (or heart obviously) and that's a shot that's hard to hit. Chances are, you'll miss or hit off your target. Your victim will probably still have the will to run (unless like I said it was in the spine). You have to **** your gun. By that time, they've most likely escaped. Much less lethal than a semi/full auto gun.

Also about acquiring the actual gun;

Regular citizens can easily get a gun illegally, it's all dependant on their location and who they know. So it's kind of unrealistic to assume every citizen wouldn't try to go through these steps if they option was available.
There's no reason for a regular citizen to get a gun illegally normally, unless based on crime. This, is not your basic citizen. That's a criminal my friend. And if he's going to do an assault crime and getting the gun illegally, chances are he has shady connections. Your average citizen does not have these connections. Also, yes location plays a huge part. But we can't just make people move on the grounds of "It's easier for you to get a gun illegally".
Legally acquiring guns is where you're wrong you said here:



Exactly how would this stop an average citizen from acquiring a gun legally?
Why would I want the average citizen to not get a gun legally? Under the way I'm saying, it would be an average handgun or rifle, given to a normal person. Nothing bad about that.

Click to expand...

I have to put this here due to the character count.

Stop responding this way, this is the last time I'm responding to your messages this way, split up the quotes and do it that way, it's a huge hassle to have to copy and paste your responses.

Deaths, not deaths caused by negligence. Also, source on your last sentence?
Deaths would decrease to due your violent killings decreasing. As I said before, a handgun is a lot less lethal than your average gun. More on that later.

Click to expand...

I can't find the study I read on it so I'll just omit that, so just disregard the negligence bit for now.

But Violent killings would still continue because hand guns and basic guns are still on the streets. Assault weapons are used FAR less in crimes then hand guns.

Also assault weapons even if banned, will still likely be used in violent crimes so what's the point? The Oakland incident should speak volumes.

That can also be applied to crime, and your above point, but I won't go in to that. As for that, you're a proponent for keeping them because you can't get your aim right?

Click to expand...

If I'm a bad shot I should be able to enjoy hunting like anyone else, furthermore you haven't shown WHY assault weapons should be banned you're only argument is it's "to much fire power." You need to explain WHY you believe this otherwise your restrictions are just arbitrary.

A shot to the head is a hard shot to make to a moving or fighting target. Most people with quite a bit of training can't do that. A chest shot is easier yes, but the lethality is based on the caliber of your gun and where you hit. A shot to the spine will cripple, but most likely not kill. It takes a dead middle chest shot to kill (or heart obviously) and that's a shot that's hard to hit. Chances are, you'll miss or hit off your target. Your victim will probably still have the will to run (unless like I said it was in the spine). You have to **** your gun. By that time, they've most likely escaped. Much less lethal than a semi/full auto gun.

Click to expand...

No you're downplaying the lethality of gun shots. your chest and mid section are very vulnerable a shot to the either side can puncture a lung, which can cause death. Also It's safe to assume must gun targets will be fairly close to them we're not talking about guns being fired from across the room here since your average crime with gun violence is usually a hold up of some kind, you're at point blank range hitting lethally is a lot easier.

There's no reason for a regular citizen to get a gun illegally normally, unless based on crime. This, is not your basic citizen. That's a criminal my friend. And if he's going to do an assault crime and getting the gun illegally, chances are he has shady connections. Your average citizen does not have these connections. Also, yes location plays a huge part. But we can't just make people move on the grounds of "It's easier for you to get a gun illegally".

Click to expand...

You know the average citizen doesn't have these connections how exactly? I can tell you getting a gun illegally is a lot easier then you think. Just because I have friends who are criminals wouldn't mean I'm a criminal (not talking about me perse but for arguments sake.)

Why would I want the average citizen to not get a gun legally? Under the way I'm saying, it would be an average handgun or rifle, given to a normal person. Nothing bad about that.

Click to expand...

I'm saying you're wrong in thinking this will stop guns from being used for violent crimes, like I said before bad times drives people to commit crimes. It's not unlikely for someone to fit your criteria perfectly and still use their gun to commit a crime. Like I said before your criteria isn't stopping anything, it's just creating the illusion of stopping violent crime.

But Violent killings would still continue because hand guns and basic guns are still on the streets. Assault weapons are used FAR less in crimes then hand guns.

Click to expand...

While that's true, semi-automatic handguns are used FAR more than a regular handgun. If you didn't notice, I said to ban all semi-automatic or automatic weapons.

Also assault weapons even if banned, will still likely be used in violent crimes so what's the point? The Oakland incident should speak volumes.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by The Oakland incident, I'll leave that for now.

If I'm a bad shot I should be able to enjoy hunting like anyone else, furthermore you haven't shown WHY assault weapons should be banned you're only argument is it's "to much fire power." You need to explain WHY you believe this otherwise your restrictions are just arbitrary.

Click to expand...

The firepower contributes to lethality. That contributes to deaths caused by negligence, and also, how many "mass murder" crimes do you see committed using a "basic" gun? People completely bent on pulling it off would still get automatic guns, but I'm sure it would decrease, if not eliminate most "spur of the moment" type things.

No you're downplaying the lethality of gun shots. your chest and mid section are very vulnerable a shot to the either side can puncture a lung, which can cause death. Also It's safe to assume must gun targets will be fairly close to them we're not talking about guns being fired from across the room here since your average crime with gun violence is usually a hold up of some kind, you're at point blank range hitting lethally is a lot easier.

Click to expand...

No in reality I'm not. You're right in saying a shot to the lung can be lethal. But as for other things, such as a fleeing victim, it's hard to hit. Even at point blank, if a gun is wrestled for, and it isn't automatic, the chance of getting a lethal hit is pretty slim if they're around your size. You may get shot in the arm in the process, but that should be enough time to set off an alarm (if applicable) and/or run.

You know the average citizen doesn't have these connections how exactly? I can tell you getting a gun illegally is a lot easier then you think. Just because I have friends who are criminals wouldn't mean I'm a criminal (not talking about me perse but for arguments sake.)

Click to expand...

You know the average citizen does have these connections how exactly? I've never tried getting a gun illegally, but I'm sure it's not too easy if you don't have those connections. As for your last sentence, obviously, but if you aren't a criminal, you wouldn't be thinking about a crime or getting a gun illegally anyways.

I'm saying you're wrong in thinking this will stop guns from being used for violent crimes, like I said before bad times drives people to commit crimes. It's not unlikely for someone to fit your criteria perfectly and still use their gun to commit a crime. Like I said before your criteria isn't stopping anything, it's just creating the illusion of stopping violent crime.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've said stop once. Just decrease. Maybe not by a huge amount, but by a decent amount. And that's true, but with a weaker weapon, and legal weapon (if we're going by that) the chance of the crime being lethal, or the perpetrator not being found is a lot less likely.

Also, on the topic of "assault weapons", what exactly is the benefit of having them?

Neisan said:

While that's true, semi-automatic handguns are used FAR more than a regular handgun. If you didn't notice, I said to ban all semi-automatic or automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Actually it's the exact opposite, hand guns are used FAR more often then assault weapons. The reason for this is they're concealable and readily available.

I'm not sure what you mean by The Oakland incident, I'll leave that for now.

Click to expand...

California has a ban on assault weapons, a man went on a spree with an assault weapon. Indicating banning of assault weapons doesn't stop the use of assault weapons.

The firepower contributes to lethality. That contributes to deaths caused by negligence, and also, how many "mass murder" crimes do you see committed using a "basic" gun? People completely bent on pulling it off would still get automatic guns, but I'm sure it would decrease, if not eliminate most "spur of the moment" type things.

Click to expand...

Mass murders happen rarely, banning assault weapons based on the fear of mass murdering is bad policy it's just a fear tactic.

No in reality I'm not. You're right in saying a shot to the lung can be lethal. But as for other things, such as a fleeing victim, it's hard to hit. Even at point blank, if a gun is wrestled for, and it isn't automatic, the chance of getting a lethal hit is pretty slim if they're around your size. You may get shot in the arm in the process, but that should be enough time to set off an alarm (if applicable) and/or run.

Click to expand...

Who's going to use an assault weapon to commit a robbery? The chance of being robbed with an assault weapon or being on the opposite end of said weapon is so small that it shouldn't even be an issue.

You know the average citizen does have these connections how exactly? I've never tried getting a gun illegally, but I'm sure it's not too easy if you don't have those connections. As for your last sentence, obviously, but if you aren't a criminal, you wouldn't be thinking about a crime or getting a gun illegally anyways.

Click to expand...

I don't, but the resources are there to be abused it would be foolish to assume out of the millions of people out there no ones going to be abusing it. It should be noted that illegal gun trafficking is the real problem here, instead of placing arbitrary bans on less popular weapons maybe you should direct your resources toward keeping guns off the streets. Just a thought.

Also when you lose your job, and your house is about to be repossessed I'm pretty sure the idea of robbing a bank enters a persons mind at least once. This is why I said in bad times the willingness to commit crimes goes up.

I don't think I've said stop once. Just decrease. Maybe not by a huge amount, but by a decent amount. And that's true, but with a weaker weapon, and legal weapon (if we're going by that) the chance of the crime being lethal, or the perpetrator not being found is a lot less likely.

Click to expand...

A gun is still a gun, you point and it shoots. It's an effective killer no matter how powerful the gun is.

Also, on the topic of "assault weapons", what exactly is the benefit of having them?

Click to expand...

Their benefits are irrelevent, we don't ban things because they're not beneficial.

Wrong. Actually it's the exact opposite, hand guns are used FAR more often then assault weapons. The reason for this is they're concealable and readily available.

Click to expand...

Reread my post.

California has a ban on assault weapons, a man went on a spree with an assault weapon. Indicating banning of assault weapons doesn't stop the use of assault weapons.

Click to expand...

Ahhh. And 1 case does not a good point make. I was attacked once at a camp-out by a 17 year old schizophrenic Mormon, who bit my leg and beat me with a flashlight. Does that mean this will happen to everyone who goes to a camp-out? Point: An isolated case doesn't prove anything (Unless you're doing something like saying that everyone is red. If you found a white person, it would be breaking it obviously0.

Mass murders happen rarely, banning assault weapons based on the fear of mass murdering is bad policy it's just a fear tactic.

Click to expand...

But, like I said, there's also no point to having them in the first place.

Who's going to use an assault weapon to commit a robbery? The chance of being robbed with an assault weapon or being on the opposite end of said weapon is so small that it shouldn't even be an issue.

Click to expand...

See: Semi-Automatic handgun. I didn't just include something like an automatic rifle. A sem-automatic handgun is used in a large majority of crimes.

I don't, but the resources are there to be abused it would be foolish to assume out of the millions of people out there no ones going to be abusing it. It should be noted that illegal gun trafficking is the real problem here, instead of placing arbitrary bans on less popular weapons maybe you should direct your resources toward keeping guns off the streets. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Considering I don't actually control it, it isn't me (just pointing that out, you're wording like I can actually do something about it), but it's also foolish to assume I wouldn't do something about trafficking. Of course measures would be taken to stop it, just along with the policy I described. This thread is on gun control, not gun trafficking, and thus there wasn't a reason to comment on it.

Also when you lose your job, and your house is about to be repossessed I'm pretty sure the idea of robbing a bank enters a persons mind at least once. This is why I said in bad times the willingness to commit crimes goes up.

Click to expand...

Obviously. And logic and morals would most likely stop a person from getting the gun illegally and robbing the bank. On the other hand, if a gun used to normally rob a bank was with you, there's a lot less time for you to talk yourself out of it.

A gun is still a gun, you point and it shoots. It's an effective killer no matter how powerful the gun is.

Click to expand...

But some are better than others.

Their benefits are irrelevent, we don't ban things because they're not beneficial.

Click to expand...

But if there are a few cons, but no benefits, what's the point of having them around? Think of it this way. There's this guy, who's been hanging around with you. He's annoying, smelly, and weird. You have no benefits as to hang out with him. Would you keep him around you? That's a dramatization, but you get the point.

Neisan said:

Reread my post.

Click to expand...

I did, my point stands. Let me show you what you said.

While that's true, semi-automatic handguns are used FAR more than a regular handgun. If you didn't notice, I said to ban all semi-automatic or automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

In this debate I thought it was clear when we spoke of assault weapons semi-autos and autos were considered under that term? Furthermore semi-autos and autos fall under the DoD's definition of an assault weapon.

Ahhh. And 1 case does not a good point make. I was attacked once at a camp-out by a 17 year old schizophrenic Mormon, who bit my leg and beat me with a flashlight. Does that mean this will happen to everyone who goes to a camp-out? Point: An isolated case doesn't prove anything (Unless you're doing something like saying that everyone is red. If you found a white person, it would be breaking it obviously0.

Click to expand...

Your example has nothing in common with the case I provided. Furthermore it shows even with the banning of assault rifles you can still acquire one, acquiring banned weapons is nothing new hardly what I call an isolated incident.

But, like I said, there's also no point to having them in the first place.

Click to expand...

And that's a legitimate argument to ban something why exactly? I didn't realize we could ban things because there's no point in having them.

See: Semi-Automatic handgun. I didn't just include something like an automatic rifle. A sem-automatic handgun is used in a large majority of crimes.

Click to expand...

No, shotguns, handguns, rifles are used primary in crimes. The weapon of choice for most criminals is a handgun for the reason I already mentioned. They're easy to acquire, maintain and concealable.

Considering I don't actually control it, it isn't me (just pointing that out, you're wording like I can actually do something about it), but it's also foolish to assume I wouldn't do something about trafficking. Of course measures would be taken to stop it, just along with the policy I described. This thread is on gun control, not gun trafficking, and thus there wasn't a reason to comment on it.

Click to expand...

Your policy is an arbitrary ban on weapons that are used in one percent to less then one percent in crimes. Furthermore your criteria you laid out has been in the works in many states for several years now. Gun Control is fine, but not when it's just arbitrary restrictions.

Obviously. And logic and morals would most likely stop a person from getting the gun illegally and robbing the bank. On the other hand, if a gun used to normally rob a bank was with you, there's a lot less time for you to talk yourself out of it.

Click to expand...

Nah desperation can drive even the most logically thinking people to do acts they wouldn't normally do. You just lost your job, losing your home, you're constantly bickering with your wife. Do you honestly your brain is thinking logically at this point? probably not.

But some are better than others.

Click to expand...

Sure but regardless of the type of firearm it's still an effective killing machine, so placing a ban on one isn't really solving a problem or even that beneficial to being with.

But if there are a few cons, but no benefits, what's the point of having them around? Think of it this way. There's this guy, who's been hanging around with you. He's annoying, smelly, and weird. You have no benefits as to hang out with him. Would you keep him around you? That's a dramatization, but you get the point.

Click to expand...

Bad example again, whats with these bad examples? By banning assault weapons you're restricting someones constitutional right. By not hanging out with that guy I'm not restricting anyone's constitutional right

I would argue there are benefits to having assault weapons, especially in the case of robbery and home invasion.

In this debate I thought it was clear when we spoke of assault weapons semi-autos and autos were considered under that term? Furthermore semi-autos and autos fall under the DoD's definition of an assault weapon.

Click to expand...

Yep. Just making sure you knew it meant those handguns as well.

Your example has nothing in common with the case I provided. Furthermore it shows even with the banning of assault rifles you can still acquire one, acquiring banned weapons is nothing new hardly what I call an isolated incident.

Click to expand...

Mine was a theoretical isolated case. Yours was a real world isolated case. Probably a bad example, but eh. Also, I think I've agreed with you multiple times that gun control doesn't stop some criminals from getting the weapons. Measures SHOULD be taken to stop that, but that's for another debate.

And that's a legitimate argument to ban something why exactly? I didn't realize we could ban things because there's no point in having them.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's just one of the points. The argument is that the cons outweigh the (no) benefits.

No, shotguns, handguns, rifles are used primary in crimes. The weapon of choice for most criminals is a handgun for the reason I already mentioned. They're easy to acquire, maintain and concealable.

Click to expand...

Shotgun: Assault weapon
Handgun: I've said multiple times, the main handgun used is a semi-automatic. Have you ever seen crime footage? Have you seen how they shoot multiple shots in succession? That's a semi-automatic weapon (if you didn't already know, you most likely did). A regular handgun, one that has to be cocked in between shots, which takes time, is not normally used. Well, unless the criminal is bent on losing/being caught/not succeeding.
Rifle: What type of crime are you referring to?

Your policy is an arbitrary ban on weapons that are used in one percent to less then one percent in crimes. Furthermore your criteria you laid out has been in the works in many states for several years now. Gun Control is fine, but not when it's just arbitrary restrictions.

Click to expand...

Woah woah woah. You said "crimes". Obviously the percent is less. We're talking crimes involving a gun. Also, I'm pretty sure you just said that " shotguns, handguns, rifles are used primary in crimes.". Primarily, last time I checked is larger than 1%. Shotguns: Assault weapon. Handgun used in crimes: Assault weapon. Rifle: Depending on the kind, could be an assault weapon.

Nah desperation can drive even the most logically thinking people to do acts they wouldn't normally do. You just lost your job, losing your home, you're constantly bickering with your wife. Do you honestly your brain is thinking logically at this point? probably not.

Click to expand...

Logic, maybe not, but morale should keep you from doing a full fledged bank robbery.

Sure but regardless of the type of firearm it's still an effective killing machine,

Click to expand...

True, but like I said, a handgun is pretty hard to kill with if not in point blank range. A punctured lung or hit at the heart is all that you can hope for. And you've only got one real shot to do it with in a standard handgun.

Bad example again, whats with these bad examples? By banning assault weapons you're restricting someones constitutional right. By not hanging out with that guy I'm not restricting anyone's constitutional right

Click to expand...

The point wasn't on constitutional rights. It was on the no benefits, while there are cons argument. And if your argument is on the constitution, weapons then and weapons are A LOT different. Their weapons were virtually impossible to kill with. As for bad examples, I'll try to make them less flimsy so to speak.

I would argue there are benefits to having assault weapons, especially in the case of robbery and home invasion.

Click to expand...

Really? Because I'm sure you said non-automatic handguns were an effective killing machine. If you can kill fine with a handgun, why would you possibly need an assault weapon? And why is your focus on killing in the first place?
"ooh honey this guy jacked our lamp...so I killed him."
The focus on protection should be on just that. Crippling or subduing so he can't get you, or long enough to where the cops can come.

Neisan said:

Mine was a theoretical isolated case. Yours was a real world isolated case. Probably a bad example, but eh. Also, I think I've agreed with you multiple times that gun control doesn't stop some criminals from getting the weapons. Measures SHOULD be taken to stop that, but that's for another debate.

Click to expand...

Yes but you're applying arbitrary measures.

Actually, that's just one of the points. The argument is that the cons outweigh the (no) benefits.

Click to expand...

Well you need to show that, not continue to state it over and over again. Give me evidence, not anecdotal hypothetical s.

Shotgun: Assault weapon

Click to expand...

WRONG!

Unless that shot gun is firing at semi-auto or fully auto speeds it's not an assault weapon.

Handgun: I've said multiple times, the main handgun used is a semi-automatic. Have you ever seen crime footage? Have you seen how they shoot multiple shots in succession? That's a semi-automatic weapon (if you didn't already know, you most likely did). A regular handgun, one that has to be cocked in between shots, which takes time, is not normally used. Well, unless the criminal is bent on losing/being caught/not succeeding.

Click to expand...

I see now, those semi-automatic weapons are wrongfully given the title of assault weapons, they don't spray fire, in fact the only way to really spray fire is to go into a frenzy and just keep shooting. Furthermore you have to physically aim at your target unlike an assault rifle or automatic shot gun where you can just spray and hope for the best. (those are heavily regulated/banned.)

Rifle: What type of crime are you referring to?

Click to expand...

None in particular I just know like any gun they're used in crimes.

Woah woah woah. You said "crimes". Obviously the percent is less. We're talking crimes involving a gun. Also, I'm pretty sure you just said that " shotguns, handguns, rifles are used primary in crimes.". Primarily, last time I checked is larger than 1%. Shotguns: Assault weapon. Handgun used in crimes: Assault weapon. Rifle: Depending on the kind, could be an assault weapon.

Click to expand...

Awesome I was unaware we could argue semantics at this point! Clearly you knew what I was talking about.

1. I already showed you shot guns unless automatic are not assault weapons.

2. pistols are not the only handguns used in crimes, and I mentioned that they're wrongfully given that name of assault weapon because besides being semi-automatic they don't match the criteria at all.

Logic, maybe not, but morale should keep you from doing a full fledged bank robbery.

Click to expand...

Morality is subjective to each person.

True, but like I said, a handgun is pretty hard to kill with if not in point blank range. A punctured lung or hit at the heart is all that you can hope for. And you've only got one real shot to do it with in a standard handgun.

Click to expand...

You see the head and midsection where the target is? that's your room for error. Pretty big room if you ask me, unless you're someone who gets jittery a lot chances are you'll kill a person.

The point wasn't on constitutional rights. It was on the no benefits, while there are cons argument. And if your argument is on the constitution, weapons then and weapons are A LOT different. Their weapons were virtually impossible to kill with. As for bad examples, I'll try to make them less flimsy so to speak.

Click to expand...

You haven't shown no benefits to having assault weapons banned, furthermore the then vs now argument is moot. All weapons today that are available to civilians are meant for civilian usuage. No ones going around with an ak-47, automatic weapons are banned.

Really? Because I'm sure you said non-automatic handguns were an effective killing machine. If you can kill fine with a handgun, why would you possibly need an assault weapon? And why is your focus on killing in the first place?
"ooh honey this guy jacked our lamp...so I killed him."
The focus on protection should be on just that. Crippling or subduing so he can't get you, or long enough to where the cops can come.

Click to expand...

Intimidation? I dunno Some people feel safer with heavier fire power. After all with the basic hand guns if you miss you're kinda screwed. Sides you're basically giving the criminal the upper hand, a criminal usually doesn't get a gun legally, so chances are they'll get a semi-auto and you're stuck with a silly single shot pistol or at best a revolver.

Who's going to subduing who here?

WRONG!

Unless that shot gun is firing at semi-auto or fully auto speeds it's not an assault weapon.

Click to expand...

I was always under the impression they were considered an assault weapon. If not, the point still stands of banning them.

I see now, those semi-automatic weapons are wrongfully given the title of assault weapons, they don't spray fire, in fact the only way to really spray fire is to go into a frenzy and just keep shooting. Furthermore you have to physically aim at your target unlike an assault rifle or automatic shot gun where you can just spray and hope for the best. (those are heavily regulated/banned.)

Click to expand...

Now you're just arguing for your definition of "assault weapon". Assault weapon or not they should be banned. I've already outlined the fact that a basic handgun does the job, a semi-automatic is just overkill. And actually, rapid shots are quite possible. all you have to do is pull the trigger over and over. That gives you a VERY good chance of hitting your target.

None in particular I just know like any gun they're used in crimes.

Click to expand...

But another reason to limit them to regular rifles.

Awesome I was unaware we could argue semantics at this point! Clearly you knew what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Clearly we are, your main argument is on what are and what aren't assault weapons. For the sake of this, it's the guns I outlined: ALL guns semi-automatic/automatic, and shotguns.

1. I already showed you shot guns unless automatic are not assault weapons.

Click to expand...

Considering I outlined them in my first post iirc, they are for this argument.

2. pistols are not the only handguns used in crimes, and I mentioned that they're wrongfully given that name of assault weapon because besides being semi-automatic they don't match the criteria at all.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you consider a handgun? Any concealable weapon that you can hold with one hand?

Morality is subjective to each person.

Click to expand...

Obviously, but I'm pretty sure most people consider bank robbery bad.

You see the head and midsection where the target is? that's your room for error. Pretty big room if you ask me, unless you're someone who gets jittery a lot chances are you'll kill a person.

Click to expand...

See your red spot? That's your only basically "guaranteed lethal" spot. If you aren't considering your heart, the chances are slim, based only on the hope you'll puncture a lung. I've already said the head is practically impossible to hit on a moving target.

You haven't shown no benefits to having assault weapons banned, furthermore the then vs now argument is moot. All weapons today that are available to civilians are meant for civilian usuage. No ones going around with an ak-47, automatic weapons are banned.

Click to expand...

Crime reduction, reduction of lethal gunshot wounds...hmmm, no benefits? No, the then vs now argument stands. Your argument was that is was unconstitutional. The constitution was written then, with different weapons, and now we have much stronger, much more lethal weapons. Also, we're not taking away the "right to bear arms". We're limiting it to certain weapons.

Intimidation? I dunno Some people feel safer with heavier fire power. After all with the basic hand guns if you miss you're kinda screwed. Sides you're basically giving the criminal the upper hand, a criminal usually doesn't get a gun legally, so chances are they'll get a semi-auto and you're stuck with a silly single shot pistol or at best a revolver.

Click to expand...

On the case of robbery, most (home) robberies don't use a weapon at all, or if they do it's a knife or small gun. They're going to get your stuff, not kill you. Home invasions are different, but really, even if you do have the guns in that case, they've got larger guns, the element of surprise, and the ability to shoot you before you get those guns. There's also the fact that you most likely won't shoot if they have your loved ones.

Neisan said:

I was always under the impression they were considered an assault weapon. If not, the point still stands of banning them.

Click to expand...

Why? You're not offering any evidence what so ever, this is why your provisions are just arbitrary ones.

Now you're just arguing for your definition of "assault weapon". Assault weapon or not they should be banned. I've already outlined the fact that a basic handgun does the job, a semi-automatic is just overkill. And actually, rapid shots are quite possible. all you have to do is pull the trigger over and over. That gives you a VERY good chance of hitting your target.

Click to expand...

In case you didn't know I've been arguing against arbitrary provisions against assault bans this entire debate. The term assault weapon was just crude attempt by gun control advocates to ban hand guns. When they extended the term from military style weapons to civilian style semi-automatics.

Furthermore you're not providing any sort of evidence that these weapons should be banned only your own judgment. Laws are generally passed because there's some rational for it. You haven't offered a good rational only under the pretense of "basic weapons do the job." Or "these bans will be beneficial" When there's no evidence to support this idea at all.

Criminals use guns mostly pistols for reasons I've already mentioned. Under your provisions one of the most popular civilian hand guns will be banned. How will this be beneficial? Now when someone enters my home at best I have a revolver with 9 shots, while my invader most likely has a semi-auto pistol. All your provisions are doing is empowering the criminal.

Clearly we are, your main argument is on what are and what aren't assault weapons. For the sake of this, it's the guns I outlined: ALL guns semi-automatic/automatic, and shotguns.

Click to expand...

And I'm saying the weapons you've outlined as assault weapons are arbitrary automatics have been off the market since the 60's I believe so they're already a non-issue. You haven'ts how why banning semi-auto weapons is going to somehow be beneficial.

Considering I outlined them in my first post iirc, they are for this argument.

Click to expand...

So lets recap you're extending the definition of assault weapons to basic shot guns as well? Whats the rational for it? It can't be because of crime because shot guns are used rarely in crimes.

What exactly do you consider a handgun? Any concealable weapon that you can hold with one hand?

Click to expand...

Yes because that's the proper definition of a hand gun, a hand gun is any gun that falls under the Revolver, Pistol, Derringer category.

Obviously, but I'm pretty sure most people consider bank robbery bad.

Click to expand...

Rational thinking people who have things to lose think that, when you are at wits end you're far more inclined to commit crimes especially if they might have a favorable outcome.

See your red spot? That's your only basically "guaranteed lethal" spot. If you aren't considering your heart, the chances are slim, based only on the hope you'll puncture a lung. I've already said the head is practically impossible to hit on a moving target.

Click to expand...

Okay how about you ask anyone who's worked in the ER what happens when someone comes in with a gunshot wound in areas I described. The chance of survival, under your logic a gun shot wound to the head wouldn't be as lethal as one to the heart, I mean after all it's not marked in red right?

Crime reduction, reduction of lethal gunshot wounds...hmmm, no benefits? No, the then vs now argument stands. Your argument was that is was unconstitutional. The constitution was written then, with different weapons, and now we have much stronger, much more lethal weapons. Also, we're not taking away the "right to bear arms". We're limiting it to certain weapons.

Click to expand...

Crime reduction: You haven't proven your provisions will reduce crime especially considering most of the guns you're banning are not even included in crimes. You're also disarming most citizens of their semi-autos which are designed for self defense and civilian usage.

Lethal Gun shot wounds: Bad rational.

It's bad gun control, the provisions and the reasoning behind them don't match. There's a flimsy connection at best this is why it's a bad rational. I said the "then vs now" argument is bad because it shouldn't matter. Military style weapons and automatics have been out of the public hands for a very long time. Weapons on the market today are designed for civilian use which usually accounts for self defense, hunting, and sport.

On the case of robbery, most (home) robberies don't use a weapon at all, or if they do it's a knife or small gun. They're going to get your stuff, not kill you. Home invasions are different, but really, even if you do have the guns in that case, they've got larger guns, the element of surprise, and the ability to shoot you before you get those guns. There's also the fact that you most likely won't shoot if they have your loved ones.

Click to expand...

Bolded: Not every case, Why don't you go tell that William A. Petit Jr, don't know who that is? Okay. Both his daughters and wife were *****, killed then his home was set on fire. Yeah They just wanted your things right? Anecdotal evidence aside, home invasions like this are not that unheard of, it's dishonest to assume home invasions are just targeting a persons things.

Most people keep their guns in their bed room, when someone breaks into your home you can usually hear it thus giving you the time to get your gun. Unless the person knows your house better then you do you'll have the time.

Also most robberies are not home invasions they're usually businesses.

Why? You're not offering any evidence what so ever, this is why your provisions are just arbitrary ones.

Click to expand...

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Better? That also contains both sides of the argument, don't attempt to jab it with "bias". That link also provides evidence against your "negligence" point (Only 1.5 percent, a decent amount, but not the "most" you were talking about). Also, arbitrary is just a decision made using your own judgement. ALL laws ever passed were arbitrary. Except by "own" in this case, it would be congress.

In case you didn't know I've been arguing against arbitrary provisions against assault bans this entire debate. The term assault weapon was just crude attempt by gun control advocates to ban hand guns. When they extended the term from military style weapons to civilian style semi-automatics.

Click to expand...

Obviously that's what our debate WAS about. Now your attempt to shut down my points is based off of what are what aren't assault weapons, thus my comment.

Furthermore you're not providing any sort of evidence that these weapons should be banned only your own judgment. Laws are generally passed because there's some rational for it. You haven't offered a good rational only under the pretense of "basic weapons do the job." Or "these bans will be beneficial" When there's no evidence to support this idea at all.

Click to expand...

Really? Because I'm sure I've outlined at least 2 points as to why it WOULD be beneficial, and you've outlined...0. Your attempts to rebuke my points were based on isolated cases and definitions.

Criminals use guns mostly pistols for reasons I've already mentioned. Under your provisions one of the most popular civilian hand guns will be banned. How will this be beneficial? Now when someone enters my home at best I have a revolver with 9 shots, while my invader most likely has a semi-auto pistol. All your provisions are doing is empowering the criminal.

Click to expand...

Criminals use semi-automatics for the reasons I've mentioned. Also, your invader may or may not have a semi-automatic pistol (likely, I'll admit). If he's bent on robbery, he will:
A. Not kill you at all.
B. You'll hear him and have the first shot.
Also, I do believe you said that it was EASY for citizens to get illegal weapons. If so, they'll have their protection anyways.

And I'm saying the weapons you've outlined as assault weapons are arbitrary automatics have been off the market since the 60's I believe so they're already a non-issue. You haven'ts how why banning semi-auto weapons is going to somehow be beneficial.

Click to expand...

I've shown a few times. The majority of weapons used in crimes are semi-automatic. Banning those, how is that not beneficial?

So lets recap you're extending the definition of assault weapons to basic shot guns as well? Whats the rational for it? It can't be because of crime because shot guns are used rarely in crimes.

Click to expand...

Rational: Shotguns really aren't needed. WAY to lethal from a short range. You've proved my point for that already, as you said most crimes are done in short range, and shotguns are used in most crimes (According to you). Considering a shotgun can kill basically no matter what body part it hits...
Also, you say they're rarely used now. But just a few posts up, you said they're used in most crimes. Make up your mind.

Yes because that's the proper definition of a hand gun, a hand gun is any gun that falls under the Revolver, Pistol, Derringer category.

Click to expand...

Making sure you weren't including different things. Also, I don't really care what assault weapon means or doesn't mean. My rational is based entirely on if it's beneficial, and if it's too lethal for civilian use to not just be overkill. Not on
Also, Pistols, revolvers, and derringers are all VERY alike, the difference only being concealability. I'm considering the hand guns that are lethal as Semi-automatic pistols. Those being guns such as Desert Eagle, Glock 17, .45's, etc. These are used in a large amount of anything involving a pistol.

Rational thinking people who have things to lose think that, when you are at wits end you're far more inclined to commit crimes especially if they might have a favorable outcome.

Click to expand...

Most large scale robberies don't end up with a favorable outcome.

Okay how about you ask anyone who's worked in the ER what happens when someone comes in with a gunshot wound in areas I described. The chance of survival, under your logic a gun shot wound to the head wouldn't be as lethal as one to the heart, I mean after all it's not marked in red right?

Click to expand...

I didn't say a head wound wasn't lethal. I just said the chances of hitting the head are slim. Obviously if you get in the head your chances to live are pretty bad, but getting hit there in the first place is a low chance. The other areas? You might end up in ICU, but in the end, you'll be alive most times.

Crime reduction: You haven't proven your provisions will reduce crime especially considering most of the guns you're banning are not even included in crimes. You're also disarming most citizens of their semi-autos which are designed for self defense and civilian usage.

Click to expand...

Really? I'm pretty sure the Desert Eagle, Glock, and .45 are used in the majority of crimes. Auto/Semi auto rifles/shotguns are used in the majority of large scale crimes. That covers most things.

Lethal Gun shot wounds: Bad rational.

Click to expand...

Explain. Also, a higher chance of killing is a good reason to ban. Otherwise automatic rifles would still be legal.

It's bad gun control, the provisions and the reasoning behind them don't match. There's a flimsy connection at best this is why it's a bad rational. I said the "then vs now" argument is bad because it shouldn't matter. Military style weapons and automatics have been out of the public hands for a very long time. Weapons on the market today are designed for civilian use which usually accounts for self defense, hunting, and sport.

Click to expand...

Of course it should matter. The constitution was written THEN. That was part of your argument. True on the second part. Third part, designed for, but not always used for. You can still do all those things with the guns I said would be allowed.

Bolded: Not every case, Why don't you go tell that William A. Petit Jr, don't know who that is? Okay. Both his daughters and wife were *****, killed then his home was set on fire. Yeah They just wanted your things right?

Click to expand...

Well quite obviously not every case. We've got plenty of psychos. Also, that was a home invasion, not a robbery. BIG difference. You're basically screwed no matter what in a home invasion. Also, currently, those weapons are still legal. Why didn't they help him?
http://www.wfsb.com/news/13736066/detail.html
I'd also like to quote their police chief when he said "In Cheshire we're not used to this type of event,". That type of event really doesn't happen often. Also, what type of weapon do you think was used for that invasion? . That's a joke btw, I know whoever did it would have gotten the weapon no matter what.

Most people keep their guns in their bed room, when someone breaks into your home you can usually hear it thus giving you the time to get your gun. Unless the person knows your house better then you do you'll have the time.

Click to expand...

Uhh. Ya. Didn't I say that? That applies to robberies, if you have a pistol you'll be able to do it just fine. And with a home invasion, chances are they'll be either more than one person, or be loaded with guns you won't be able to do well against no matter what.

Also most robberies are not home invasions they're usually businesses.

Click to expand...

Robberies are never home invasions. Home invasions are bent on killing. Robberies are bent on ROBBING. And yea, I'll agree, they normally are businesses.

I've shown a few times. The majority of weapons used in crimes are semi-automatic. Banning those, how is that not beneficial?

Click to expand...

it is not beneficial because you only take these weapons away from people willing to follow the law. The gun-toting CRIMINALS are not going to sit there and go "Darn! My Glock is illegal now. I guess I need to go and find a revolver to go and shoot and kill and **** and rob with."

And then there is the fact that total bans have been deemed unconstitutional, and if things keep going as they have been, the second amendment is going to be incorporated by the 14th amendment any time now.

No ban will be beneficial, only superficial. These bans do not remove the guns from the black market or from the criminals.

I've shown a few times. The majority of weapons used in crimes are semi-automatic. Banning those, how is that not beneficial?

Click to expand...

nearly 60% of gun crime is done with one model of gun: the .38spl snub-nosed revolver. The other is divided among the following:
-Beretta .25
-Raven Arms DP pistol
-Hi-Point pistol
-Lorcin pistol
-Jennings autoloader
-Bryco autoloader
-Taurus revolvers
-Ruger .22 match pistols
-Remington 870 Shotguns
-Mossberg shotguns
-other "Wal-Mart" hunting weapons

What do these guns all have in common? A price tag of under $300 in most places. Most of the handguns can be bought for $180-200. And the better part? Not a single one would qualify as an assault weapon. Only half of them are even semi-autos.

military-style weapons, or guns that would even qualify as an assault weapon don't even make up a whole 2% of gun crime.

So, with that said, where is the benefit?

Really? I'm pretty sure the Desert Eagle, Glock, and .45 are used in the majority of crimes. Auto/Semi auto rifles/shotguns are used in the majority of large scale crimes. That covers most things.

Click to expand...

protip: those who know jack about guns, or the environment about guns, or the capabilities about guns, should not be arguing about guns. You really have no clue if you think the Desert Eagle is a viable weapon of all things. The average crook is poor and flat-out destitute, under 20 years old, etc. Usually just punk kids - the kind with no money or future or anything. They are not going to be able to afford even the street price of a Desert Eagle, most .45acp handguns, etc. That is why the cheapos as listed above are responsible for the majority of crimes. And there are not many crimes or people killed at all by AK-47s and the like, but you only hear about these more because the media loves these "heinous high-profile crimes". Truth is, they don't happen frequently at all. The only benefit to banning them is that the media will have one less thing to sensationalize.

Of course it should matter. The constitution was written THEN. That was part of your argument. True on the second part. Third part, designed for, but not always used for. You can still do all those things with the guns I said would be allowed.

Click to expand...

so the constitution was not written to protect freedoms, but to simply say that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...until that is scary assault weapons not envisioned 250 years ago are invented, which means then we should do away with the second amendment? Should we just ban everything but Muskets, and say that freedom of speech is only limited to soapboxes and old print paper, and not on TV or the web?

And the whole phrase "I said would be allowed" rings bells and whistles here. So apparently a person has to establish a need to have a certain weapon? I'm sorry, I forgot that we lived in a free country here in the US. Maybe you could jar my illusions of freedom and force me into a socialist police state. Maybe we should also go through my house and replace my car with a mopad since I don't "need" a car that can over twice the legal speed limit, or take away a few TVs because we don't "need" one in every major room of the house. Now, I know what you're going to think: "but guns are used to kill people." And I say: "So what?" You are basically using a relative ideology to justify gun control, and in doing so you are coming off as a hypocrite.

Uhh. Ya. Didn't I say that? That applies to robberies, if you have a pistol you'll be able to do it just fine. And with a home invasion, chances are they'll be either more than one person, or be loaded with guns you won't be able to do well against no matter what.

Click to expand...

the latter would make a good case for justifying the need for a Saiga-12 or related autoloading shotgun, or a "hi-capacity" (note: it was made to hold a 30-round mag, so doesn't that actually make it a "standard capacity mag"?) semi-automatic rifle like a good ol' M4 or AR-15 or AK-type rifle, wouldn't it? Since these weapons are used for "killing lots and lots of people", couldn't they also be used to defend yourself from lots and lots of attackers?

A strange phenomenon, areas with more gun control have a higher rate of weapon related crimes than areas with less control.

Quote is pasted on the next thread due to potential malware uploaded to the site without the Web Masters' knowing .

Whoops, big error. Can I get this post removed?

Neutral Source, State Policy.

Alabama Policy Institute said:

Myth: "Gun control" laws prevent crime.
There are tens of thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 alone prohibits persons convicted of, or under indictment for, crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, fugitives, illegal drug users, illegal aliens, mental incompetents and certain other classes of people from purchasing or possessing firearms. It prohibits mail order sales of firearms, prohibits sales of firearms between residents of other states who are not dealers, prohibits retail sales of handguns to persons under age 21 and rifles and shotguns to persons under age 18 and prohibits the importation of firearms "not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." It also established the current firearms dealer licensing system. Consider the following:

- The overall homicide rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership—California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. is 23 percent higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

- The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms, nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national homicide rate averaged 50 percent higher during the five years after the law, 75 percent higher during the next five years, and 81 percent higher during the five years after that.

The record is clear: gun control primarily impacts upstanding citizens, not criminals. Instead of taking guns away from citizens, holding them accountable for their actions reduces crime:

- Between 1980-1994, the 10 states with the greatest increases in prison population averaged a decrease of 13 percent in violent crime, while the 10 states with the smallest increases in prison population averaged a 55 percent increase in violent crime.

- Put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there. In 1991, 162,000 criminals placed on probation instead of being imprisoned committed 44,000 violent crimes during their probation. In 1991, criminals released on parole committed 46,000 violent crimes while under supervision in the community an average of 13 months. Twenty-one percent of persons involved in the felonious killings of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on probation or parole at the time of the officers' killings.

Click to expand...