Would an assault weapons ban make you feel safer?

[redandguilty]

My answer is "no".

 

[Mitchrapp]

Nope. Bad people are going to do bad things.

 

[TheVictors]

I think everyone ahould have assault rifles. Kids, teachers, librarians ...everyone.

And if someone pisses you off, shoot them with a few dozen rounds and yell, "CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!"

 

[Thumb]

No.

But then the argument that the people who insist they need assault weapons is really a no also, if they're honest. I don't think anyone with an assault weapon feels any safer having it than not.

The problem is the issue is made up on false declarations, the people wanted to ban them say it would make the country safer, it wont. The people who have them say they'll fight to the death keep them, they wont, it's all big talk and braggadocio. The people who say that would hand them right over the the National Guard or something showed up and demanded them.

This is just another issue to deflect from the fact our country is, and has been for some time, going down the financial, and economical toilet, while our congress actually prides itself on it's refusal to cooperate with the other side.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Ha, way to make a simple yes or no question into a political discussion. Just say what you're thinking, its the rights fault. Lol.

 

[Michchamp]

an assault weapons ban (which presumably includes a ban on high-capacity magazines) would make me a bit safer. I would know that if I ever have the misfortune of wandering into the range of a mass-shooting, I would have more of a chance to escape when the shooter stopped to reload, or to get away from a weapon with a closer effective range.

the other restrictions being discussed, notably the improved and hopefully actually and well-funded background checks would make me feel even safer.

will suck for the manufacturers and the NRA... if you restrict gun and ammunition sales from people suffering borderline personality disorders, or outright insane, they'll lose an important segment of their customer base and paying membership, respectively:

 

[Michchamp]

...

But then the argument that the people who insist they need assault weapons is really a no also, if they're honest. I don't think anyone with an assault weapon feels any safer having it than not.

...

I think you're more or less correct. Would be great if we could allow only sane people to own assault rifles and not cause law-abiding, competent citizens to suffer any restriction of their "2nd amendment right" but I guess that's the reason we need laws in the first place... to draw a line against anti-social, sociopathic nutjobs so we can lock them up when they cross it.

though, personally I think anyone arguing they need an assault rifle for any reason other than killing other people or indulging in some sort of juvenile GI Joe fantasy is a sign of mental illness to some varying degree, ranging from mild depression, paranoia, or other mild personality disorders to complete paranoid schizophrenia. But that's just me.

 

[redandguilty]

A funded background checking system and improvements to how we deal with mental health could potentially be productive.

Assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans are mostly for show. Not to say they aren't central to the issue of these lone wacko killing sprees, but they're not the drivers of the gun violence stats people point to.

A handgun ban would change everything.

What would happen if you banned handguns but let people have all the assault weapons they wanted?

edit: see below...looks like I'm dead wrong about the significance of handguns.
2nd edit: nevermind. that source has most firearms homicides categorized under other/unspecified...and the bulk are probably handguns

 

[KAWDUP]

Same thing if you banned everything but bazookas. People would own bazookas.

Banning anything related to firearms at this point raises its sales to almost three times what they would be in a normal year. Not sure that it would have the complete desired effect.

Agree that the ban is mostly for show, but maybe a show is needed so that the victims can find closure. That is pretty important too.

. . . and any ban will be overturned as soon as folks are complacent again.

Seems to all be cyclical.

 

[redandguilty]

Same thing if you banned everything but bazookas. People would own bazookas.

Banning anything related to firearms at this point raises its sales to almost three times what they would be in a normal year. Not sure that it would have the complete desired effect.

Agree that the ban is mostly for show, but maybe a show is needed so that the victims can find closure. That is pretty important too.

. . . and any ban will be overturned as soon as folks are complacent again.

Seems to all be cyclical.

<edit: it's handguns. ignore the following>

I think I'm completely wrong in my impression the handguns drive gun homicide.

This website says only about 10% of firearms homicides are handguns.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

 

[redandguilty]

Wikipedia says it's handguns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

wiki's source:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

that's what makes sense to me. If you want to reduce homicide you have to go after the cheapest weapons that are most convenient to conceal and operate.

 

[Thumb]

I think you're more or less correct. Would be great if we could allow only sane people to own assault rifles and not cause law-abiding, competent citizens to suffer any restriction of their "2nd amendment right" but I guess that's the reason we need laws in the first place... to draw a line against anti-social, sociopathic nutjobs so we can lock them up when they cross it.

though, personally I think anyone arguing they need an assault rifle for any reason other than killing other people or indulging in some sort of juvenile GI Joe fantasy is a sign of mental illness to some varying degree, ranging from mild depression, paranoia, or other mild personality disorders to complete paranoid schizophrenia. But that's just me.

What I meant by that was if a person feels they need an assault weapon with high capacity mags and rate of fire, to feel "safe", then it means they have some serious shit to be protecting themselves from. And if it's that serious, you're never safe anyways.

If a pistol or a shotgun wont stop it, you're fucked.

 

[Thumb]

Ha, way to make a simple yes or no question into a political discussion. Just say what you're thinking, its the rights fault. Lol.

God Mitch, you're a cynical bastard you know that?

How on earth did you glean any finger pointing at the right by what I posted?

 

[Mitchrapp]

God Mitch, you're a cynical bastard you know that?

How on earth did you glean any finger pointing at the right by what I posted?

You're assuming I actually read what you posted. I just assumed which as the saying goings -- Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

 

[Michchamp]

Wikipedia says it's handguns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

wiki's source:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

that's what makes sense to me. If you want to reduce homicide you have to go after the cheapest weapons that are most convenient to conceal and operate.

those handguns aren't really useful to well-regulated militias anyways... if the government wants to push "me" around, "me" being a peaceful citizen, they use riot police with body-armor (against which most handguns are nearly useless) and armored vehicles (against which handguns are completely useless). and any foreign invaders would be bringing it with tanks and such.

so... presumably there's not really much use for handguns under the constitutional argument.

 

[Michchamp]

I think I'm completely wrong in my impression the handguns drive gun homicide.

This website says only about 10% of firearms homicides are handguns.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

:hmm:

I expect in Chicago for example, the Lion's share of them are done with handguns, as I would expect is the case in all major cities. or maybe I'm underestimating the body count in assault-rifle led mass shootings from the past year...

 

[redandguilty]

Same thing if you banned everything but bazookas. People would own bazookas.

If you could actually get rid of handguns, but people were free to buy all the bazookas they wanted I think firearms homicides would plummet.

 

[Michchamp]

If you could actually get rid of handguns, but people were free to buy all the bazookas they wanted I think firearms homicides would plummet.

KAWDUP used to play Goldeneye on the rocket-launchers-only setting and laugh when everyone blew themselves up 3 seconds into each mission because the AI wasn't designed to play with rocket-launchers.

 

[KAWDUP]

KAWDUP used to play Goldeneye on the rocket-launchers-only setting and laugh when everyone blew themselves up 3 seconds into each mission because the AI wasn't designed to play with rocket-launchers.

That the voice of experience there champ?

Give me a bazooka or an M1A1 tank, and I will win more than a lion's share of any argument. I also wouldn't have to put up with this sickening Atlanta traffic.

 

[KAWDUP]

If you could actually get rid of handguns, but people were free to buy all the bazookas they wanted I think firearms homicides would plummet.

But think how cheaply bazookas would become to make. So, how do you define a bazooka? For instance, does it need a specific barrel size to be considered a bazooka?

Firearm homicides would plummet, but bazooka homicides would skyrocket. Bad people will continue to do bad things. However, I would expect most domestic homicides would be mostly eliminated. Only guys like champ could get his significant other mad enough to use a bazooka on him. :hehe:

The only thing most gun laws end up doing is keeping honest people "more" honest. They certainly have their place in a civilized society, but as is usually the case, civilized society requires more intelligence and self-control than currently exists. So where does that leave us?