Poll of the Day > Is there any good reasons to NOT ban "assault-class" weapons?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't want to argue. I don't want to get tangled up in "what is an assault weapon" label BS. I don't want to see ludicrous D-grade conspiracy theories pop up in a pitiful attempt for a legitimate response to this issue. (Just today a friend from church told me we have no reason to do anything about this because of fricking Manchurian candidates. It left me feeling shocked.)

I'm just looking to educate myself, and get some simple discussion on the matter.

If you have a rational, compelling argument on why we, as a people, should NOT remove bump stocks, fully automatic, and other weapons of this nature from legal, public circulation...I would like to see what you have to say.

If you are on the same page as I am, and you have compelling counter-arguments against common reasoning you see from the pro-gun side, I'd like to read them.

I will probably not be replying, unless I need some clarification. I don't really want to participate in bickering or fighting. I just want to learn more on this issue.
---

Freedom, honey

What other reason do you need?
---

alien invasions
---

if personal liberty isnt a good enough reason for you, then maybe you should move to nazi canadia where big daddy government will happily hold your hand and regulate your life.

also

JCvgluvr posted...

I will probably not be replying

so youve just made a duckbear topic, but with far more trollish, clickbaity undertones than that disgusting mass of flesh usually does?
---

Evil Government.
---

Anyone who posts a topic on a divisive issue and openly states they wont respond to arguments on it is either thoughtless or spineless, or worse, both.
---

Rooster_Sucker posted...

Anyone who posts a topic on a divisive issue and openly states they wont respond to arguments on it is either thoughtless or spineless, or worse, both.

could also be just a straight up troll
---

I'm not particularly pro-gun, if anything I'm anti-gun...

But I'm more anti-kneejerk, and anti-lies. Stop using lies to put your given gun agenda, whatever it is
---

I can put a lot of bullets down range in a minute with my bolty and a magazine ain't nothin but a box with a spring.

If I wanted to shoot up a school with a bolt-action and a drum mag bodged from a nerf gun, I could do more damage than the most recent guy.

Ban negligent treatment for maximum effect.
---

And to actually address the argument, a militia is both military and police so really the public should have police weapons available to them at least.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And to actually address the argument, a militia is both military and police so really the public should have police weapons available to them at least.

Also, to put things in perspective - If there was a Florida shooting TWICE A DAY... You'd save more lives cracking down on drunk driving.
---

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And to actually address the argument, a militia is both military and police so really the public should have police weapons available to them at least.

Also, to put things in perspective - If there was a Florida shooting TWICE A DAY... You'd save more lives cracking down on drunk driving.

I'd be drunk too if I was living in Florida.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And to actually address the argument, a militia is both military and police so really the public should have police weapons available to them at least.

Also, to put things in perspective - If there was a Florida shooting TWICE A DAY... You'd save more lives cracking down on drunk driving.

I'd be drunk too if I was living in Florida.

We should ban florida
---

Some movies and games make Florida seem like its the hotspot. Is it really conservative down there?

Weapons manufacturers will make less money.
---

Ranzoh posted...

Some movies and games make Florida seem like its the hotspot. Is it really conservative down there?

Gay nightclubs

Swinger capital

Party beach culture

Drug culture

Spring break spot (not as popular as ince before)

Racially mixed population

I have no idea why it isnt a hard blue state.

Did I forget to mention old people retirement capital?

I dont think thats political one way or another though.
---

bulbinking posted...

Ranzoh posted...

Some movies and games make Florida seem like its the hotspot. Is it really conservative down there?

Gay nightclubs

Swinger capital

Party beach culture

Drug culture

Spring break spot (not as popular as ince before)

Racially mixed population

I have no idea why it isnt a hard blue state.

Did I forget to mention old people retirement capital?

I dont think thats political one way or another though.

Outside of a few big cities which are west palm, ft. lauderdale, miami, and the tampa/orlando region you have just a sea of red with just enough people living in them collectively to outvote the big populated regions.
---

It'd be strange if there were guns that are legal in Canada but not in America... Like the SKS pictured above. A bunch of my friends have those.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

if personal liberty isnt a good enough reason for you,

On its own? Not really. Try an argument with some sort of practical grounds, not this vague "muh liberty!" that never actually says anything meaningful. Start by asking yourself why you consider this specific bit of freedom to be valuable.

There is no rational reason.

They will just resort to misinterpretations of the second amendment that completely ignores the "well regulated" part.

BlackScythe0 posted...

They will just resort to misinterpretations of the second amendment that completely ignores the "well regulated" part.

Are you suggesting that just having a machine gun in half the houses isn't the same thing as having an organized civilian militia that could actually stand up to anything more threatening than a teenager in a ski mask?

I gotsta protect my farm from poachers and ne'er-do-wells
---

Nightengale posted...

I gotsta protect my farm from poachers and ne'er-do-wells

Don't forget keeping the King of England out of your face!
---

If you were meant to have guns then they'd teach gun safety in school.

Y'know what they actually teach in school? How to go insane behind a desk after spending 10 years doing menial tasks... y'know, preparing people for a realistic expectation of the workforce.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I can put a lot of bullets down range in a minute with my bolty and a magazine ain't nothin but a box with a spring.

If I wanted to shoot up a school with a bolt-action and a drum mag bodged from a nerf gun, I could do more damage than the most recent guy.

Ban negligent treatment for maximum effect.

Lmao. Shit like this is why I cant take you seriously.
---

Considering that there's no good reason to ban them, you really need to make the case before anybody can argue against it. There's no such thing as an "assault-class" weapon and, if you banned them, it would just move to banning the next gun because the end goal here has *always* been the complete banning of firearms.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
---

Caitlyn_Jenner posted...

Freedom, honey

What other reason do you need?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJXwjNAwFZ8
---

Zeus posted...

Considering that there's no good reason to ban them, you really need to make the case before anybody can argue against it. There's no such thing as an "assault-class" weapon and, if you banned them, it would just move to banning the next gun because the end goal here has *always* been the complete banning of firearms.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

Lies and conspiracy theories.

Bravo.

From my understanding our previous ban of them had basically no real impact on gun deaths. For that matter, gun bans don't really seem to decrease murder rates. They just shift murder rates from being caused by guns to being caused by other things like stabbings. I read recently that a study did find that increased gun ownership did reduce murder rates but carrying around assault weapons is both overkill and impractical for self defense so its not really good for arming people either. Those things being said there's no real reason to ban them or not ban them since it doesn't really change much to do anything with them. Just makes people who like to collect guns grumpy.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

if personal liberty isnt a good enough reason for you,

On its own? Not really. Try an argument with some sort of practical grounds, not this vague "muh liberty!" that never actually says anything meaningful. Start by asking yourself why you consider this specific bit of freedom to be valuable.

i consider every bit of freedom to be valuable because i am a fucking adult and i can make my own decisions. i dont need big daddy government to make them for me, because unlike you i am not a man sized child.
---

JCvgluvr posted...

I don't want to argue. I don't want to get tangled up in "what is an assault weapon" label BS.

JCvgluvr posted...

I'm just looking to educate myself, and get some simple discussion on the matter.

Uh
---

Some things need changing, but outright banning a huge category of guns like that would not be the best immediate idea.

One thing I think should be mandated is a federal firearms licence. A ridiculous number of states don't require a licence to purchase a gun at all. In addition, there should be federal registration for guns, I'd propose all guns, but maybe roll it out slower and start with hand guns. Have that licensing office with access to NICS, and have a mandatory course to go along with applying for a licence.

After this, if there are specific firearms, or classes of firearms that need to be prohibited further, do so, but allow all current owners of those firearms a one time prohibited firearms licence to own those specific firearms, and perhaps have a system where one can apply for such a licence in the case of inherited firearms or other special purposes.

Basically, adopt Canada's system.
---

This guy wants to ban semi-auto guns, and in his argument he specifies bump stocks, fully automatic weapons, and other weapons of that nature as examples of what he wants to ban. Clearly he doesn't have the slightest clue what he is arguing. A more accurate post would have been, "Can somebody explain to me what these terms mean?"

I don't believe in limiting people's rights.
---

A law that punishes 100% of the population for the actions of a fraction of a fraction of the population is unjust.

Further, whoever came up with that graphic in the op clearly lives in a fantasy land where a single bullet will ALWAYS down its target. They have apparently never heard of drugs, armor, or multiple assailants.

I am for harsher punishment of gun negligence and illegal sales (getting a friend to buy one for you if you cannot legally do so, shops not doing proper checks, parents leaving them around for their kids to get hold of). In such instances I would have those responsible (the friend, shop clerk, etc) charged as an accessory to any crime committed with the firearm.

Judgmenl posted...

I don't believe in limiting people's rights.

Also, anything that dismisses the contingency of fighting a tyrannical government is absolute bullshit.
---

chaosbowser posted...

From my understanding our previous ban of them had basically no real impact on gun deaths. For that matter, gun bans don't really seem to decrease murder rates. They just shift murder rates from being caused by guns to being caused by other things like stabbings. I read recently that a study did find that increased gun ownership did reduce murder rates but carrying around assault weapons is both overkill and impractical for self defense so its not really good for arming people either. Those things being said there's no real reason to ban them or not ban them since it doesn't really change much to do anything with them. Just makes people who like to collect guns grumpy.

The ban was on new purchases.

Still waiting for a good argument. Whining about "muh liberty" and resorting to conspiracy theories is not going to get us anywhere.

Rooster_Sucker posted...

Anyone who posts a topic on a divisive issue and openly states they wont respond to arguments on it is either thoughtless or spineless, or worse, both.

Because gathering the opinions of others is such a crime. Don't get so worked up over strangers on the internet. LOL

Lokarin posted...

Also, to put things in perspective - If there was a Florida shooting TWICE A DAY... You'd save more lives cracking down on drunk driving.

I saw a similar argument elsewhere. This logic fails to convince me, in particular, because any mass shooting is too many in my book.

chaosbowser posted...

From my understanding our previous ban of them had basically no real impact on gun deaths.

From my understanding, a gun that can shoot less bullets will kill less people. Common sense. (If you really expect me to believe otherwise, post unbiased statistics. I'll be waiting.)

Troll_Police_ posted...

i consider every bit of freedom to be valuable because i am an adult

A truly mature individual (AKA adult) would realize that having any and all freedoms available does nothing but encourage those who would abuse those freedoms. That's why we have...laws...doy. The trick is finding the balance between liberty and safety. And the results seem far too skewed in the wrong direction for my liking.

AverageBoss posted...

A law that punishes 100% of the population for the actions of a fraction of a fraction of the population is unjust.

Don't be naive. Many laws and other societal rules exist for this exact reason.
---

JCvgluvr posted...

Whining about "muh liberty" and resorting to conspiracy theories is not going to get us anywhere.

Translation: I am handwaving otherwise valid arguments because I disagree with them. Why can't anyone provide me with a good argument?
---

Rasmoh posted...

Also, anything that dismisses the contingency of fighting a tyrannical government is absolute bullshit.

Can we please put this bullshit fantasy to bed? Ignoring that the idea of a tyrant seizing power in the United States is patently ridiculous, civilian access to arms has never - not once - overthrown a tyrannical government, in the US or anywhere else, and it never will.

News flash: civilians do not violently depose governments; militaries do. The fate of any popular revolution is completely dependent on whether or not the military supports it (or, if they do not, whether the rebels can find an ally outside the country willing to support them militarily). If the military supports, or at least is tolerant of, the revolution, it will succeed (see: Egypt, Ukraine). If they remain on the side of the government, the uprising will fail (see: Iran, Syria, Bahrain, countless others) unless another military intervenes.

This is doubly true of a country with as powerful a military as the United States. If a tyrant were to somehow rise to power in the US, either they will have the allegiance of the military, in which case any civilian uprising would be swiftly and brutally crushed by the most powerful military force on the planet, or they would not, in which case the military would be able to topple the dictator at their leisure and the civilian milita would be wholly unnecessary.

And this all tiptoes around the logical loophole no one ever seems to bring up in these debates: there's no guarantee that gun owners wouldn't be on the side of the tyrant. After all, guns for all means the tyrant's loyalists would have just as much opportunity to arm themselves as anyone else (probably more, given that they're the ones planning on installing a dictatorial regime).

Troll_Police_ posted...

i consider every bit of freedom to be valuable because i am a fucking adult and i can make my own decisions.

If you were an adult, you might realise that freedoms are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

For instance, we have freedom of speech not so we can all say "piss shit ball fuck", but so that we can do things like peacefully assemble, disagree with the government, and worship whatever god we want and not worry about being tossed in jail.

"Muh freedom" is a juvenile argument, one that attempts to close off the debate without actually making any substantive declaration of fact. If you actually want to be taken seriously, you need to articulate what end that freedom will be used in pursuit of, and why it's worth any costs associated with said freedom.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Ignoring that the idea of a tyrant seizing power in the United States is patently ridiculous

Why?

uprising would be swiftly and brutally crushed by the most powerful military force on the planet

Very true, which is why small groups of insurgents are always completely wrecked by the US and don't result in years and years of dragged out guerrilla warfare. Also, we're literally just a few years removed from an incident where an armed civilian militia successfully stood up against the federal government.

here's no guarantee that gun owners wouldn't be on the side of the tyrant

So? By removing the right of the people to arm themselves, you give all the power to the tyrant outright instead of at least raising a chance of resistance.

For instance, we have freedom of speech not so we can all say "piss shit ball fuck", but so that we can do things like peacefully assemble, disagree with the government, and worship whatever god we want and not worry about being tossed in jail.

These rights mean absolutely fuck-all without force to ensure they remain in place. If a government decided to start jailing you for disagreeing with them, what the fuck do you plan on doing about it?
---

Rasmoh posted...

Why?

Well, let's see.

The United States has the most powerful military in the world, so a hostile invasion is out of the question. That means that the dictator would have to first be elected to office, necessitating he somehow convince half(ish) of the population that he's a decent guy. However, at that point, he at most controls the executive branch - in the event he tries to exceed the limits of his power, both the legislative and judicial branches have ample means to curtail his power or, if need be, remove him from office. And if our would-be tyrant managed to somehow neuter Congress and the judiciary, there's still the issue of the military, which presumably would not take kindly to the country becoming a dictatorship.

Simply put, the system doesn't allow for one man to attain enough power to install himself as dictator. There are too many forces arrayed against him and power in the US, as in nearly all democracies, is too decentralized to be swiftly acquired in a power grab before other forces could rally to contain the threat.

Or... I suppose the dictator could do exactly what you're advocating and just buy a bunch of guns and overthrow the government that way. But you're trying to paint overthrowing the government with force of arms as a good thing, so that possibility isn't really a mark in your favour...

Rasmoh posted...

Very true, which is why small groups of insurgents are always completely wrecked by the US and don't result in years and years of dragged out guerrilla warfare

They pretty much are, when you look at it. Who has engaged the US in guerilla warfare and actually won? The North Vietnamese (with a huge asterisk in that they were supported by the Soviets and the Chinese, making it less a case of guerilla warfare and more if a proxy war) and.... no one else, really. The Taliban were punted from power and, while still making a nuisance of themselves, they haven't seized control of any government anywhere. Al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self, on the verge of collapse and it is joined in that pile by ISIS. More to the point, not a single one of those guerrilla groups actually succeeded in inflicting a meaningful defeat on the US, particularly not on its own soil. The most you can say about them is that they made more of a nuisance of themselves than America expected.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Also, we're literally just a few years removed from an incident where an armed civilian militia successfully stood up against the federal government.

If by "successfully stood up against the federal government", you mean "squatted in a random, non-military government building in the middle of the wilderness, made zero progress with their demands, and eventually got arrested by the police, charged with trespassing, and, in one case, shot dead (with zero casualties on the government side)", sure, they did a bang-up job.

Saying that the Oregon standoff represents a successful rebellion against the government is like saying the Women's March successfully overthrew Trump. And if you want to see what happens to a resistance group when the government decides it actually wants to play hardball (which it was assiduously avoiding in the Oregon case), go look up the Waco siege or the Ruby Ridge standoff.

Rasmoh posted...

These rights mean absolutely fuck-all without force to ensure they remain in place. If a government decided to start jailing you for disagreeing with them, what the fuck do you plan on doing about it?

Um... deal with it like a fucking adult by sticking with resistance methods that actually have a reasonable chance of success instead of deluding myself into thinking I can Rambo my way through the entire United States military?

This is a sensationalist and meaningless question. No mature Western democracy has ever had this situation arise, even the ones who have strict bans on weaponry.

Rasmoh posted...

So? By removing the right of the people to arm themselves, you give all the power to the tyrant outright instead of at least raising a chance of resistance.

By removing the right of people to arm themselves I am also removing the tyrant's most reliable path to power by removing his own ability to arm himself and his supporters. I'd say that's a fair tradeoff.
---

Judgmenl posted...

I don't believe in limiting people's rights.

The rest of us dont really care.
---

Mead posted...

Judgmenl posted...

I don't believe in limiting people's rights.

The rest of us dont really care.

I don't care the most, ok?
---

JCvgluvr posted...

A truly mature individual (AKA adult) would realize that having any and all freedoms available does nothing but encourage those who would abuse those freedoms. That's why we have...laws...doy.

Wow.

Coming from a family with multiple lawyers, this interpretation of the law has me literrally terrified for the future of america if people by and large actually think this way.

JCvgluvr posted...

The trick is finding the balance between liberty and safety. And the results seem far too skewed in the wrong direction for my liking.

Its people who feel powerless that are sriven to acts of mass violence.

We didnt have this issue in the past when firearm ownership per capita was higher.

Maybe society is to blame?

How about we all stop being such exclusionary clickish bastards and it wont feel so satifying for the weirdos of the class to put a bullet in people that made them feel worse about their lives then they apparently already felt?

Herd mentality causes instintual bullying of the other (provided that person isnt weird from being a special protected citizen class of weirdness bc then you are a celebrity in the eyes of attention seekers and being nice to celebrities means I will get attention too!)
---

JCvgluvr posted...

having any and all freedoms available does nothing but encourage those who would abuse those freedoms. That's why we have...laws...doy.

what? do you seriously think that is the purpose of the law?

jesus fucking christ what is the world coming to
---

darkknight109 posted...

Simply put, the system doesn't allow for one man to attain enough power to install himself as dictator.

Do you think dictatorships and tyrants just rise to power on their own, with no help whatsoever?

Who has engaged the US in guerilla warfare and actually won?

You don't need a complete military victory to have some success. It's more to illustrate the point that even being severely outmatched in just about every way, guerrilla tactics are an effective way to provide resistance.

If by "successfully stood up against the federal government"

Talking about the Nevada standoff, which was successful.

government decides it actually wants to play hardball (which it was assiduously avoiding in the Oregon case)

And it was avoiding it because when governments become too tyrannical, people begin to call for revolution. Ruby Ridge and Waco would be considered events leading to a potential revolution. When a government is behind too many events like that, people tend to want a new government.

Um... deal with it like a fucking adult

Hahahahaha, wow. What is the adult way to deal with a tyrannical government throwing you in jail indefinitely for speaking out against them?

deluding myself into thinking I can Rambo my way through the entire United States military?

No one thinks they can do this. What they do think they can do is provide resistance and a deterrent to the police state required to enforce tyranny. You need a police state to subjugate a population, and for that you need police. People are less likely to become police and jail people for expressing the wrong opinion when they might catch a bullet to the head when they go to arrest someone.

By removing the right of people to arm themselves I am also removing the tyrant's most reliable path to power by removing his own ability to arm himself and his supporters.

Tyrants have ways to accrue arms and power that regular citizens do not. Gun control literally only restricts law abiding citizens.
---

Fighting a tyrannical government is one of the stupidest excuse gun supporters bring up. Your country is ruled by corporations. They don't need guns to rule you and you can't fight them with guns.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

i consider every bit of freedom to be valuable because i am a f***ing adult and i can make my own decisions.

So you value the freedom to kill somebody for no reason? That is a "bit of freedom," after all.

Gotta draw the line somewhere, dude. In a situation like this, the line doesn't have to be arbitrary, so try putting some thought into it.