You are talking about limits not bans and we do have limits

You say tomayto...


The 'limit' on machine guns or surface-to-air missiles looks suspiciously like a 'ban' to me.

exactly!
I pointed out how similar these issues are (guns vs alcohol/tobacco) we do have some limits on guns showing how similar the two are. But like the limits on alcohol and tobacco they are limited and not total bans (as some here want to see with hand guns). Smoking is bad, we have some laws of who can purchase, where you can smoke, we have education programs, we do not allow smoking on TV, etc. But we do not ban cigarettes because we deem them bad, no kidding they are bad. We have limited guns already, assault weapons have been shown to be far less harmful than many other guns, they are statistically used rarely in any crimes, the facts are simply not on the side of those calling for their ban. So similar to booze and cigs, the real answer is not in banning them but rather "other".

How do I know a ban on assault weapons solves no problems? Because statistically they are not a problem. Your "logic" would have us ban cigar lighters. Matches and regular lighters cause more fires than do cigar lighters, a friend of mine has one with a triple jet flame, surely we have no "need" for 3 jet flames, if we banned this type of lighter we would maybe see one or two less fires a year?
The thing is statistically speaking, those fires are very few and users would simply use another "less deadly" lighter. The same thing with guns, ban the scary looking assault weapon even though it has less lethality, even though most handguns have the same semiautomatic mechanism. Ban the scary looking gun, ban the scary looking lighter and point to the very few lives saved and call it a moral win on your side?

The FACTS are simply not there to logically call for a ban on assault weapons. I used to think similarly until I started educating myself on them and the reason to call for their ban is based on nothing more than fear of a scary looking gun that is not understood!

tom

How do I know a ban on assault weapons solves no problems? Because statistically they are not a problem

The question is, what are the purposes and uses of assault weapons? If the purposes and uses of an assault weapon are incompatible with community safety standards why should they be allowed?
statistically assault weapons may not amount to a large percentage of the people injured or killed by guns in the United States, but their implementation provided the means by which several incidents became much larger because of the specific properties of the weapons.
Similarly one could argue that surface to surface missiles have not been a statistical factor in gun deaths in the US and therefore private ownership should be allowed.
In the case of missiles its the potential for harm by one misuse that makes the ban obvious. Similarly, the ban on assault weapons is aimed at the larger destructive potential of the weapon unfortunately proven in several events.And, by the way, now that their use has been highlighted in these events, won't copy cats seek out the same weapons?
What is the justification for owning and keeping an assault weapon in ones home? So far, all I've heard is "I have the right to do so".
Banning assault weapons would not contravene the 2nd amendment according to the opinion of a Liberal judge named Scalia in the Heller ruling.

Justice Scalia emphasized that, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

.

The purpose and use of an assault weapon is to kill people!
Same with a hand gun and guess what, we have the RIGHT to own weapons that are designed to KILL people. An assault weapon is practically the same as any modern handgun, it simply "looks" scary. "Community safety standards" can simply be applied any way they desire, constitution be damned ...as has happened in many places. Those "standards" are then overturned by the courts. How are these assault weapons any worse than say a Glock?

Are you now suggesting we ban them simply because someone MIGHT become a copycat?
As far as the justification for owning one, frankly that is none of your business nor none of the governments business, what is the "justification" for owning a sports car or a Hummer or for collecting stamps for that matter? Americans have the right to defend themselves, if they feel safer with a rifle or safer with a handgun, that's their decision and who are you to decide what they feel safer owning?

Please check the differences between modern handguns and assault weapons
A Glock fires the same way, it has a detachable magazine, it has bullets that do more damage, it is even more portable and lighter, etc But you still rally on about banning the scary looking gun you simply do not understand?

tom

The purpose and use of an assault weapon is to kill people!

lots of people. quickly.

tom

Are you now suggesting we ban them simply because someone MIGHT become a copycat?
As far as the justification for owning one, frankly that is none of your business nor none of the governments business, what is the "justification" for owning a sports car or a Hummer or for collecting stamps for that matter? Americans have the right to defend themselves, if they feel safer with a rifle or safer with a handgun, that's their decision and who are you to decide what they feel safer owning?

Well, yes, I do think it is prudent to prevent future tragedies. If one refuses to learn from tragedies, they are repeated.
Since the Supreme court has said it is reasonable to put restrictions on the commercial sale of arms, it stands to reason that there must be a justification for the products sale.
Why is it that you consider a ban on surface to surface missiles or bazookas appropriate but on assault weapons or semi automatic weapons its inappropriate? They are all weapons. Its just that the public sees the ban on bazookas as justifiable.
Considering the carnage in Oregon, Denver and Connecticut its only reasonable to examine the assault rifle and semi automatics and ask whether or not a ban on them would be as appropriate as on bazookas. That implies that those who wish to own should be required to justify their continued liberty to own them.
And yes, the danger of copy cats is very real. Its why airline travel security became very restricted and difficult immediately after 9/11.
Its absolutely a dead certainty that someone else will use an AR15 in a mass shooting in the next several months . Failing to attempt to prevent this because it discomforts a few people would be as irresponsible as allowing bazookas to be sold .

Ignorance...
Assault Rifles kill lot's of people quickly, yes they do
but so do handguns, just as fast, maybe even faster since they are lighter and easier to maneuver
but handguns are not being banned, why?
Could it be simply because you do not like the looks of the scary looking gun? Could it be because you have not looked into the differences and are instead blindly following what others are ignorantly demanding? Please answer why an assault weapon ban but not a handgun ban?

Nice try to change the topic
Bazookas and surface to air missiles are not assault weapons, please read, the difference between assault weapons and handguns is mostly the way they look! Bazooka do look different as well, but the damage done by a bazooka is not the same, but wait, the damage done by an assault weapon compared to a handgun is not the same either, the assault weapon is less damage! (Check that video posted by DF earlier)

And again, nice try to change the facts with your copycat worries. Airlines started changing security based on the threats out there, they check for all guns or should they only search for assault rifles? Because someone shot up a grammar school, maybe we should ban all grammar schools and require kids to learn from home only now? That would certainly prevent such copycat shootings wouldn't it? And if I were inclined to copycat this, is the weapon of choice what you are worried about or simply the desire to kill children? The copycat issue we need to worry about is not the weapon used, if we do away with a particular gun, will that now cause that copycat moron to stop his plans? Absolutely not, this copycat worry is a joke, I can't believe you want to even raise that as an issue in the least!

No kidding someone will use an AR15 in some shooting at some time but guess what, we will have a whole lot more people shot by handguns in the time between, we will have a whole lot of drunk driving deaths, a whole lot of poisonings, a whole bunch of rapes, it's an ugly world out there, what TYPE of gun is used for someones evil deeds is not the issue in the least.

GMTom wrote:Nice try to change the topic
Bazookas and surface to air missiles are not assault weapons, please read, the difference between assault weapons and handguns is mostly the way they look! Bazooka do look different as well, but the damage done by a bazooka is not the same, but wait, the damage done by an assault weapon compared to a handgun is not the same either, the assault weapon is less damage! (Check that video posted by DF earlier)

I would say that Machine guns (banned) bazookas (banned) and SAMs (banned) are assault weapons.

It's just that certain types of semi-automatic are also assault weapons.

No kidding someone will use an AR15 in some shooting at some time but guess what, we will have a whole lot more people shot by handguns in the time between, we will have a whole lot of drunk driving deaths, a whole lot of poisonings, a whole bunch of rapes, it's an ugly world out there, what TYPE of gun is used for someones evil deeds is not the issue in the least.

And yet when they are banned, things improve. So for all your blather and insistence on it being meaningless, you seem to be forgetting that people already have used AR15s in shootings. Several times.

I guess swords should be illegal as well?
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/new ... ins/nT8ny/
Swords are designed for one purpose only, killing people and nobody "needs" a sword unless they wish to kill another, sure most people are honest collectors but we can't ignore those who use them nefariously, we must protect the public from ourselves.

What is the justification for owning and keeping a sword in ones home?

And we might see copycat sword murders now so we simply can't allow these to stay legal.

Its absolutely a dead certainty that someone else will use a sword a murder in the next several months.

People have already used swords in killing others several times.

If we ban them, things will improve.
(like banning assault weapons is some sort of "certainty"? I found that kind of funny)

and I would argue a sword to be an "assault weapon" it is used to assault and kill people, it has unlimited "rounds", it has several military killing features, wow, hardly a difference between it and a bazooka?

Its absolutely a dead certainty that someone else will use a sword a murder in the next several months.

Well firstly, it isn't. Secondly, the potential to kill mass numbers of people with a sword is miniscule. Thirdly, swords are unequivocally allowed under the 2nd Amendment because they existed and were a common form of arms at the time it was drafted.

But honestly, if the quid pro quo for banning guns was that we also ban swords I'd be comfortable with that. I don't think it's necessary where swords are concerned and I do think there's a qualitative difference between the two types of weapon, but I could live with it.

Your point about how handguns are worse than assault rifles doesn't really hold together, or at least it isn't an especially good rebuttal of the argument that we've been making. The reason is simply that we all do want handguns to be banned, we just recognise that it isn't politically feasible in the States right now. Assault rifles may not kill as many people as handguns as recorded in the national crime stats but they're clearly a more dangerous form of weaponry and are involved in a lot of shootings. I don't really see that there's a legitimate case for their continued legality irrespective of the status of handguns.

So we can all agree that the end result of this campaign is to outlaw not only semi-automatic weapons, but handguns and swords? Perhaps the next step is shotguns, hunting rifles and bows? After that peashooters?

This is exactly the concern that I have, Sass. Give an inch take a mile.

I have already said that screening, training and licensing is needed. Now you say that is not enough. When will be enough, and do I believe the left when they say it will be enough.

Right now I don't.

A sword murder is not a certainty in the next several months? When I Googled sword murder, I found quite a few hits. It does happen more than you seem to think, but when it happens, it's not a sensational story that is reported by most media outlets, gee, maybe because it's not part of their agenda?

The potential to kill mass numbers of people?
really? the "potential" to kill a lot of people is astoundingly high if they wanted to do so (just keep swinging) and this is what gun control activists are preaching, is "potential" after all.

Swords used for protection in 1776?
Guns were used far more than swords in 1776, maybe you are confusing the American Revolution with the three Musketeers?

My point certainly does hold together, yes Sass is the only one willing to state his real objective or desire ...the banning of all hand guns. The points I made are that hand guns are the real problem, they are used in the overwhelming majority of all gun crime, they have as much or more damage than an assault rifle, they are used in more mass shootings (that are of course rare in themselves) than are assault rifles as well. The reasons for banning them apply just as much so (even more since it's harder to conceal an assault rifle), all the reasons stating a ban is simply not warranted is out the window when the goal ignores facts. Yes hand guns are not going to be banned, so this is simply a stepping stone towards that end, I get it, problem is so do other Americans.

Brad, I outlined what I personally consider to be an appropriate set of laws many years ago in these threads and haven't deviated from it since. I'd allow legal private ownership of firearms with a legitimate primary purpose other than killing other people, which would include hunting rifles and shotguns but would not include handguns, assault rifles, submachine guns etc. Outlawed weapons could still be owned under my proposed system of regulation but only if they were stored under lock and key at strictly licensed gun clubs where they could be used on the premises for recreational purposes but could not be carried privately (I'm not sure how that would be worked out, but it's a concession I;d be willing to make so as not to completely kill recreational shooting).

So if you're talking solely about me, that would be my endgame. However, you really don't need to worry about me because a) I'm not American and b) nobody in America gives a damn about my opinion. Just don't go accusing me of having a hidden agenda.

Sass,
I did not accuse you. I stated that your statement brings to light the concern that I have regarding the left. It is my concern about the left, not about you. You are not an American, and not able to affect policy.

I do, however, give a damn about your opinion. You may not be an American, but you are a person and I care about ALL the people here on Redscape.

I for one appreciate the honesty and even understand it, this at least makes sense!
I am more than half way in agreement myself, I would ban the blasted things if I could get rid of them all. Problem is a very serious one in that guns are incredibly easy to buy illegally here. Banning them would do nothing but keep them from the law abiding people. Over a period of many many years, handguns would certainly get scarcer and scarcer (and the street price go up and up effectively doing the same thing) but until that time we would be telling innocent people (and this is the overwhelming majority of course) that they can not protect themselves and have to simply accept it until that more peaceful time rolls around. This being part of our constitution makes such a request all the more absurd.

So we are stuck with hand guns, Sass understands this situation as well.
So hand guns are a reality, why the fuss about assault weapons when statistics show us they are not a very real problem in the least? It frankly is because of several reasons.
* This is a first step towards banning hand guns, while this does nothing in any real sort of way, it is that first of many steps toward your real objective.
* Some are simply buying into fear talk, these guns are scary looking (they really are), they are misunderstood as being more deadly, and they simply follow along with the herd who are acting in a knee jerk mentality.
* ignorance
* and more than any, other liberals they trust (Hollywood, News Media, politicians, talking heads) think this way so they parrot others thoughts.

Really guys, why are assault rifles more sinister than modern handguns such as a Glock? (revolvers are old school and pretty much old relics)

I take your point Tom, but I don't agree. I'm more than happy for a small, achievable step to be taken towards a greater eventual goal. So long as you're honest about what the eventual goal is then I don't really see how it's a problem.

I also think your attitude, while probably fairly realistic, is somewhat defeatist. As I said earlier, I'm fairly sure that given sufficient time and enough political will the problem if ready availability of handguns could be overcome. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done. I'm not naive enough to suppose that any American government will have the political will to do it, but that doesn't make it impossible, just difficult and not immediately likely.