|Hooker - 2013-03-19 |
Assault rifle is the tree that has the AK47 and M4 in counter-strike. It's number 4 on the keyboard.
|EvilHomer - 2013-03-19 |
Unlike many contemporary "hot button" issues in US politics, we have the benefit of hindsight in regards to the banning of assault rifles. We don't have to fly blind and resort to purely partisan speculation on what the effects of a ban MIGHT be; we have decades of statistics and hard science to help us reach an informed descision.
Every study done on the Clinton-era assault rifle ban, regardless of partisan or ideological affiliation, has come to the same conclusion: banning assault rifles has no measurable effect on the rates or severity of violent crimes.
We're all rational, intelligent people here at Poe. I know how tempting it can be to blame guns for our problems, but we should approach this matter with objectivity, because the science is simply just not there. In this instance, restricting the freedom of the lower classes in the name of security and order failed, just as it failed for alcohol, just as it continues to fail for drugs. So why then should we return to Prohibition?
"...we have decades of statistics and hard science to help us reach an informed descision."
Point of order: We have SOME stats and science. The NRA's toadies in Congress have long prevented the CDC and other government agencies from gathering actual data on gun deaths (i.e. which models and ammo were most often involved in homicides, where they came from, etc.) for fear that such statistics would lead to the banning of various firearms due to their popular use to create corpses and under what circumstances they occurred.
All serious studies of the assault weapons ban concluded that the law only being in place for 9 years meant that basically nothing could be concluded.
That's not the same thing as "it had no effect."
Same arguments that aren't true, to the letter, that came around last time I had to go look for the ACTUAL study that none of you read and have no idea what says. Yes it did have an effect, it made LAW ENFORCEMENT safer so they could enforce gun laws. Also, the study you'll never read cited that the threat of a ban boosted the shit out of gun profits, which you all would have surely mentioned had you actually read a study.
Damned near as bad Christians, I swear.
Assault rifles are unnecessary and stupid and nobody needs them.
Whoops I hate freedom.
Stanley - not precisely. The studies concluded that there were no measurable effects, and that means exactly what it says: there were no measurable effects.
Now, it's true that certain studies hedged their bets by pointing out that there were no measurable effects *within the timeframe examined*. That is not the same as saying there are no effects, period, or that effects could not manifest themselves at some later point in time.
But surely, I don't need to point out that, as an argument in favor of gun control, this is totally inadequate. You can't use an argument from ignorance to discount real data and real conclusions, merely because you feel there's an outside chance that the experiment you'd been running for a decade straight could start to show different results... eventually. Results that are more in keeping with the conclusion you wish to be true.
The same can be said for questions about the accuracy of our statistics; we can speculate endlessly, but the fact remains that the data is what it is, and ignoring it, merely because we find it inconvenient and have vague, unsupported concerns about it's impartiality (concerns which could just as easily be raised against state-funded statistics gathering) is intellectually dishonest.
Meme- I'm well aware that the assault rifle ban boosted the profit margins on such weapons. What I'm not clear on is why, assuming I read you right, and you're pro gun control, this should be considered a point in it's favor.
A law which restricts freedom, has no measurable effect on crime or safety, AND enriches greedy corporations? That should be the LAST thing anyone concerned with social justice would support.
99% of all gun crime is committed by handguns. Adding a few % for the VERY FEW rifle incidents that the NRA might have somehow swept under the rug is not going to affect that 99% in any considerable amount.
Memedumpster you are hilariously transparent and uninformed on the subject.
Spikes - you're perfectly within your rights to think assault rifles are stupid and unnecessary. Thinking that assault rifles are stupid does not mean you hate freedom.
When you start thinking that other people should be denied their ability to enjoy things that you think are stupid, that's when you might want to reconsider your relationship to freedom.
(I agree with you, though. Assault rifles ARE stupid and unnecessary. Semi-auto selective fire is the way to go)
What I'm amazed that nobody has pointed out yet is that the Clinton-era assault rifles ban didn't actually ban assault rifles in any way. Instead, it limited the number of ridiculous accessories you could put on it.
So you can still buy your AR-15 or AK-47, and it can have the high-capacity magazine, scope, and collapsible stock, but that's it. Or, you could have it with high-cap magazine, laser sight, and front hand-grip.
I don't really expect a neutered law like that to do much, which is exactly why republicans were thrilled with it. Now that we've had a useless law that doesn't actually ban anything, we get to point at it, and declare that since bans don't work, we shouldn't have them.
People frequently enjoy all manner of stupid and unnecessary things, but most of them aren't nearly as deadly. And on the rare occasion that they are, at worst you're going to kill yourself, so, no great loss there. I'm sure rocket launchers are a ton of fun, too.
The very idea of the law neuters itself. In order to completely ban all "assault weapons" and weapons of equal firepower, one would have to outlaw semiautomatic firearms completely in this country. Scary looking "assault weapons" have exactly the same functional characteristics as non-scary "hunting rifles" which the assault weapons ban(s) completely ignore. I strongly doubt such a broad ban would survive judicial review, even if it magically got through congress somehow.
|jangbones - 2013-03-19 |
the internet needs a new law that describes how every website eventually degenerates into forum drama
about time for me to find a new one
goodby to all my online friends forever
Do a flip!
|freedoom - 2013-03-19 |
Thanks to talk of possible bans I now own an AR-10 and a handgun. I had a mild interest in firearms before but man once someone tells me i can't have something i became all about guns.
THA SUGAH RAIN
That seems like a mature and well thought-out response.
A very American response.
And the username pans out.
Miss Henson's 6th grade class
Hey, heroin's still illegal. And child porn. And some nanny government says that it's illegal to trash a bald eagle's nest! What are you gonna do now? Huh? Huh? What are you gonna do?
|Raggamuffin - 2013-03-19 |
I'd like to use this space to declare that I am unimpressed by the "it's only technically an assault rifle if it's fully automatic" argument.
Agreed. Unless it's bolt action, it's designed to fire rounds at a high rate. The only reason to fire rounds at a high rate is to kill people.
I shoot and I like guns; but ragamuffin and I are talking about calling a spade a spade here.
I can agree that the "it's only technically an assault rifle if it's fully automatic" argument IS splitting hairs, even if it is a technically correct argument. However, hearing people intentionally misuse technical terms over and over again to try an invoke some kind of emotional reaction gets old after a while though.
I own an AR-15, but it's not an assault rifle. It doesn't fit the technical definition of "assault rifle", I don't use it to assault people, and I never intend to use it to assault people under any circumstances. It's NOT a "high capacity military style implement of murder", it's not something to protect me from tyranny, it's actually just a rather pedestrian semi-automatic rifle that I use to shoot at paper and cardboard for fun. That's it.
It wasn't my intention to try and make it look like they were talking about all semi-automatic firearms since I thought it was pretty clear that we all are talking about rifles here.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Even I know that a hell of a lot of semi-automatic firearms are worlds away from rifles, to say nothing of assault rifles." though. What exactly is the difference to you between a Glock and an AR-15?
An AR-15 is a slightly modified commercial version of a rifle that was originally designed under contract for military use.
I know a lot of gun advocates like to split hairs or muddle the discussion with semantics, but it's pretty damned disingenuous to claim that a rifle designed for military use is not an assault rifle. What would a military rifle be for if not assaulting things?
"Assault rifle" is a technical term that has a agreed-upon definition, and civilian AR-15s do not fit that definition. The video above explains this in detail.
The AR-15 is not "slightly modified" from the military rifle that it resembles. You cannot make an AR-15 capable of fully automatic or burst fire (a.k.a. an "assault rifle" by definition) without changing the mechanical parts of it substantially. You need access to the military internal parts as well as some metalworking tools and skills.
So one M-16 variant used by the military for decades isn't a military assault rifle because it fired three-round burst, not full-auto...
...yeah, this guy isn't hedging his definitions to advance a political agenda, not at all.
Who said that? Burst fire is something that only the M16A2 had as far as I know. That is definitely an assault rifle.
A civilian AR-15 is mechanically completely different from an M16A2. They look similar, but an AR-15 cannot be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull without extensive modification that would pretty much require a full machine shop to do.
|Crackersmack - 2013-03-19 |
p.s. Almost all hobbies are stupid.
^ meant to be a reply to spikestoyiu in the above thread.
Collecting and shooting guns is the most stupid of all hobbies. This seems obvious.
For some reason I want a pink assault rifle with Pinkamena on it now.
|NancyDrewFan123 - 2013-03-19 |
finally, a place where I can see people talking about guns on the internet.
What, you mean you _don't_ have a penis? GET OUTTA HERE!
I like it when they go BANG BANG BANG.
|PegLegPete - 2013-03-19 |
Great video and informative, it's important that people know the difference between different types of rifles.
Something that is also worth discussing, however, is the fact that all of these weapons are for killing. They're each designed for death, not fun, not competitions, no, these are not toys. You only need a gun in times of war, if you're law enforcement (although all of them having one is arguable), if you live out in the wilderness and maybe some special circumstances - like you might starve or something. If you're worried about self-defense get pepper spray, a taser, or stun gun. Heck, get a baton. You probably won't kill anyone (save maybe a heart attack), cause any real property damage, and these non-lethal methods are arguably more effective than guns could hope to be.
But if you insist on using them for sport, my opinion is that we should have them locked up in a place where they are accounted for and strictly controlled, preferably on the site where they are to be used. That's another discussion in itself though. Just my two cents.
When I assembled my AR-15 I selected the parts that would make it the most accurate, and I have always intended it to only be used for competitive and recreational shooting. So therefore my rifle was not designed for killing or assaulting anyone, and doesn't fit your description.
I hate the 2nd amendment wackos as much as anybody, but the facts are that my hobby enjoys specific constitutional protection. Legislators can change that if there is sufficient demand, but there is not.
Why don't they make machine guns really expensive so nobody wants to sell them and people will be robbing places for them not robbing places with them. Except in maybe some wacky "Lock Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels" style caper. That will force more spree killers to use homemade modified weapons which have a greater chance of failure. Also legalize weed.
That was the idea behind the 1934 National Firearms Act, and it worked. It also heavily regulated short barreled weapons. Both are now extremely expensive (which is why so few people have them), and banned outright in many states.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|