Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act

[Bram Turismo]

That clearly worked out well in Oslo last year.

That's kind of a very cheap shot, don't you think?

Anders Breivik shot children who were camping on the island. Let's give children guns, wouldn't that be a great idea?

He called everyone around him while dressed as a policeman with a bulletproof vest before going on a rampage and shooting everyone on sight with assault rifles. I doubt there's any 16 year old out there carrying a gun with lightningfast reflexes to shoot a handgun on a guy equipped with assault rifles and a bulletproof vest.

Using one case in the entire history of a country is kind of a silly move to try and make a point.

 

[Keef]

That's kind of a very cheap shot, don't you think?

Anders Breivik shot children who were camping on the island. Let's give children guns, wouldn't that be a great idea?

Who the hell let a bunch of kiddies camp on an island without any adult supervision?

 

[XoravaX]

How do you Europeans defend yourselfs? Can you even own hunting rifles???

Silly, of course we do, at least in Finland. According to some research, Finland has the fourth most privately owned firearms per citizen in the world, only behind the US, Yemen and Switzerland (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...l-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf). Granted, it's half (45 per 100 capita) that of the US' (88 per 100 capita) but still more than real problem countries like Iraq (34 per 100 capita).

At least we've got a Wather PPK, a very clunky 6-shooter (would probably blow apart trying to fire it), two .223 hunting rifles and a shotgun.
Though, using them for self-defence (as shooting the aggressor) could result in jail or something.

How do you defend yourselves against dictators rising to power?

The armed forces would do that, as here it isn't against any laws to use them for internal safety and control. And in the case the would-be dictator was an army general, it would be pretty hard for him to get the army to support him, because the army is the people, we don't have professional soldiers (other than several thousand higher rank officers). Every man has to serve a minimum of six months (reserve NCOs and officers longer), of whom the field army would then be called up in need, be it internal or external threat.

And then awareness of course, as Encyclopedia said.

Who the hell let a bunch of kiddies camp on an island without any adult supervision?

That's Scandinavia for you. In Finland it is common for even small children (6-or-7-year-olds) to play outside without any supervision (which I believe is the case in Sweden and Norway as well), and those in Utøya were teenagers, not 7-year-olds. Though, I believe there was supervision, but would your people suspect a man dressed in complete police uniform, and what they could have done against him seeing as he was armed with a full-auto rifle and several other firearms?

 

[Bram Turismo]

Who the hell let a bunch of kiddies camp on an island without any adult supervision?

It's a very common thing to do here. Because, y'know, people don't get shot in the head here every day.

 

[MarcoM]

Who the hell let a bunch of kiddies camp on an island without any adult supervision?

Would an addult have stopped the killing that day?

 

[Azuremen]

That's kind of a very cheap shot, don't you think?

How was it cheap? You were boasting how prevention is all you need and it clearly doesn't work.

Anders Breivik shot children who were camping on the island. Let's give children guns, wouldn't that be a great idea?

Many kids around here learn to handle guns when they are 4 or 5, and start hunting with their parents when they are around 10. The idea isn't nearly as crazy as you would like to think.

He called everyone around him while dressed as a policeman with a bulletproof vest before going on a rampage and shooting everyone on sight with assault rifles. I doubt there's any 16 year old out there carrying a gun with lightningfast reflexes to shoot a handgun on a guy equipped with assault rifles and a bulletproof vest.

I've seen kids that are 12 who can put rounds through cans on very shot notice. Again, I think you vastly underestimating the skill of people who start shooting around when they can walk.

Using one case in the entire history of a country is kind of a silly move to try and make a point.

A incredibly extreme example, perhaps, but also fresh in memory and certainly a great example of how extreme gun control doesn't prevent extreme violence.

It's a very common thing to do here. Because, y'know, people don't get shot in the head here every day.

And you think people here are just use to people getting shot in the face everyday?

Would an addult have stopped the killing that day?

I know dozens of people, personally, that would have made an effort and put their life on the line to stop a man like that.

 

[Dennisch]

Now I do realize that having a gun is pretty good self defense.

But the shootings of the last year, in the US alone. How many people were actually saved by owning a gun? You guys aren't allowed to carry a gun in public, right?

It's usually the cops that shoot the rampaging idiot. Not the average Joe.

 

[Azuremen]

But the shootings of the last year, in the US alone. How many people were actually saved by owning a gun? You guys aren't allowed to carry a gun in public, right?

Actually, one can legally carry a gun in public, provided it is visible. It just causes issues in cities because of a lot of city folk aren't really use to them resulting with calls to the police. Generally, those that want to carry a firearm will obtain a concealed carry permit, which vary from state to state. Several of my friends have these permits and almost always carry.

As for having exposed firearms in the more rural areas, it isn't uncommon to see rifles on a truck gun rack. They just aren't a big deal out here really.

It's usually the cops that shoot the rampaging idiot. Not the average Joe.

Generally, yes. Though you must consider that Universities generally prohibit firearms from being carried on campus, regardless of concealed carry permits. Then more urban areas tend to have their own laws, along with city folk having very little to no exposure to guns. When I'm in very large cities socializing, people find it surprising that I've spent a decent amount of time with guns. To them, in part because of the media and news, guns are something associated heavily with gang crime and violence instead of recreation and defensive.

 

[Dennisch]

Actually, one can legally carry a gun in public, provided it is visible.

So, if I were to become an American citizen, and would be able to obtain a gun, legally, I could walk around with a pair of these on my hips :

That's it. I'm moving. And I'm taking my truck with me.

 

[Keef]

It's a very common thing to do here. Because, y'know, people don't get shot in the head here every day.

Would an addult have stopped the killing that day?

Most people don't get shot every day. That's a fact. But is it possible? Yes. Therefore, they should have the option to defend themselves available.

Most adult chaperones don't halt killings every day. That's also a fact. But is it possible? Yes. Therefore, you shouldn't let a bunch of defenseless kids camp in the wilderness by themselves less they get eaten by a polar bear or shot in the head. That's just bad parenting. Hell, at least teach them how to carry and shoot so they can defend themselves without an adult present.

So, if I were to become an American citizen, and would be able to obtain a gun, legally, I could walk around with a pair of these on my hips :

That's it. I'm moving. And I'm taking my truck with me.

I'm not sure about all states but in my state, Ohio, and apparently Azuremen's state of Washington you can. Everybody will call the cops on you because they're all sissies, but you can.

 

[Danoff]

He called everyone around him while dressed as a policeman with a bulletproof vest before going on a rampage and shooting everyone on sight with assault rifles. I doubt there's any 16 year old out there carrying a gun with lightningfast reflexes to shoot a handgun on a guy equipped with assault rifles and a bulletproof vest.

Common misconception. The same argument was made for the aurora theater shooting - that the shooter had a bullet proof vest and so the people in the theater would have been screwed even if they did have guns.

You don't need to kill the shooter in these situations. You just need to slow him down to keep him from killing dozens of people. Only a few shots at the ceiling would have slowed the aurora theater shooter. That's all it takes, even if he's wearing a bullet proof vest. Something to make him take cover and pause so that people can escape. Every moment he's not shooting, every moment he's worried, is someone's life.

 

[Joel]

"Bullet proof" vests don't work like in Call of Duty. If you take a 9mm or .45 round to the chest while wearing one, you're really going to feel it, and you'll be at the very least knocked back.

 

[Keef]

You don't need to kill the shooter in these situations. You just need to slow him down to keep him from killing dozens of people. Only a few shots at the ceiling would have slowed the aurora theater shooter. That's all it takes, even if he's wearing a bullet proof vest. Something to make him take cover and pause so that people can escape. Every moment he's not shooting, every moment he's worried, is someone's life.

Also, every moment he is cowering for his life because he didn't expect somebody to shoot back is another moment he isn't escaping from the police.

 

[hogger129]

...

Why do people use the term "assault rifle" so loosely? Half the time, what the media calls an assault rifle and an actual assault rifle are two different things. Also, there is no such thing as a "bulletproof" vest. It's called body armor because that's what it does - shields your body against bullets. The stuff civilians can own in places like the US is only designed for common pistol rounds. Rifle rounds and lead shot from a shotgun shell will still penetrate, contrary to popular myth.

I still don't see what any of this has to do with renewing a Federal Assault Weapon ban. All these people being discussed were insane maniacs who went on rampages who weren't stopped by laws that were already in place. More laws are not the answer.

 

[Nicksfix]

...

Why do people use the term "assault rifle" so loosely? Half the time, what the media calls an assault rifle and an actual assault rifle are two different things. I still don't see what any of this has to do with renewing a Federal Assault Weapon ban. All these people being discussed were insane maniacs who went on rampages who weren't stopped by laws that were already in place. More laws are not the answer.

For the 1st part, it's because some of these anti gun / pro gun banners would not know an assault rifle if they were looking straight down the barrel of one.

True recent story here. Behind my house, beyond the lake lies 75 acres of nothingness, trees, open field, etc., etc., etc. A few weeks back, some friends of mine and myself were walking out back there to go out and do some shooting, we were approached by the neighbor lady who was just wanting to say hi and told us to be careful and have a good but be safe time out there. She inquired about the guns we were carrying. A couple of 9's (one with a laser sight), a 357, a couple of 44's, a 38, a 22 LR with a scope, a model 17 with a scope. She seen these and ask us in a somewhat laughing manner : are you guys going to war with those assault arms ? Assault arms .... like really ? Not even close lady, sorry, but these are not assault arms, not even close. Oh yeah, we had laser sights and scopes, that automatically classifies them as assault arms. OK .......

Therein lies the misconception of what is and what is not. She had no clue what an assault arm was, just like many others who take that vantage point about guns. They don't know ! But yet they want bans put into effect about assault arms and guns in general.

2nd part - I hold firm to what you said. More laws is not the answer ! Yeah ... let's throw out more laws which in turn will aid the criminal and cripple the honest civilian who is an advocate for guns.

 

[Zenith]

Why do people use the term "assault rifle" so loosely? Half the time, what the media calls an assault rifle and an actual assault rifle are two different things.

They will never ban your hunting rifle. They'll call it an assault rifle first, then they'll ban that.

 

[Grand Prix]

They will never ban your hunting rifle. They'll call it an assault rifle first, then they'll ban that.

Back to flintlock muskets then.

 

[Nicksfix]

Back to flintlock muskets then.

Known for too many misfires (safety hazard) ... instant ban on those as well.

Next up on the ban list ?

 

[Grand Prix]

Known for too many misfires (safety hazard) ... instant ban on those as well.

Next up on the ban list ?

Could hunt with crossbows (depending on your state or province could be banned as well though, and the Catholic Church says you can't use them against Christians apparently, but other faiths are just fine).

 

[BobK]

...

Why do people use the term "assault rifle" so loosely? Half the time, what the media calls an assault rifle and an actual assault rifle are two different things.

It looks to me like "assault" is becoming a mandatory adjective that must always be used with the noun "rifle", or perhaps even "gun". At least according to the media.

Interesting to know that I once had an "assault gun" that was just a paintball gun. Because it had a laser sight on it. Or at least it looked like a laser sight, provided one doesn't know what a laser sight actually looks like.

Actually it was a five dollar peep sight. But whatever.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I really don't think we should even use the term "assault rifle" anymore. There are automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and manual action rifles. What form a semi-auto rifle takes should be basically irrelevant IMO.

Personally I think people should basically be able to own whatever they want as long as they're responsible for it. I do think that background checks and registration are worthwhile, we should have huge penalties for using a gun in a crime, and we need to have a system that does a better job of identifying crazy people.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I find it funny everyone here is criticizing the public's knowledge of weapons when some of you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Really it just drives the point home even further.

 

[Nicksfix]

I find it funny everyone here is criticizing the public's knowledge of weapons when some of you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Really it just drives the point home even further.

Is it all of us, or just some of us ?

 

[hogger129]

I criticize the public's knowledge about these things because the public is largely misinformed about them. An assault rifle is selective-firing by definition. Anything that fires more than one round for each pull of the trigger is classified as a machine gun by United States law and there are a few states in which both of these are already illegal. Why don't the people who don't want to be around this stuff move to one of those states? Even in the states where they are legal, acquiring one is difficult because you need to be able to afford them in the first place - and most are extremely expensive (like $5000+) - and you have to pay a $200 ATF tax on them, plus register them, and it requires pages of paperwork which must be signed off on by (I think the country sheriff's office) before you can own them - and that signature is at their discretion. So it's not really as easy as some people would like to think.

Now as for "assault weapons," this is just a created term by politicians and the media to demonize semi-automatic versions of assault rifles - which really aren't any different in operation than most common hunting weapons. Or they use it to demonize handguns which hold more than 10 cartridges in the magazine.

The real question I have is how a law preventing the ownership of these types of weapons is Constitutional... I totally agree with the person who said you should be able to own this stuff so long as you are held 100% responsible for what you do with it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

The Constitution has to be interpreted because the forefathers couldn't have predicted automatic rifles that are as powerful as those we have today. Really this is a whole other topic but relates to this...

When the Constitution was written they also couldn't have predicted the use of nuclear weapons. It was written to preserve your rights and freedoms, for your protection. That particular amendment was included in case the people needed to rise up in case of invasion or against the government (remember England and what led up to the Revolution; fearful of a monarchy or dictatorship type government).... so does that mean citizens should be able to have nuclear weapons since our government has them?

The Constitution specifically states arms... and how could you rise up against someone with nuclear arms? Nuclear deterrence works quite well.

Just another reason 200+ year old laws need to be modified... like that will ever happen; but that is a whole other topic.

Maybe if weapons classes were mandatory upon getting a drivers license public knowledge would increase significantly and a lot of accidental shootings would be avoided. Then again you have just given criminals proper instruction on weapons handling; no more guys robbing convenience stores with their pistols cocked to the side because they do it in movies.

But, my belief is citizens (non-felon) should be able to own weapons that are not so powerful the local law enforcement could not put them down. An insane person with an automatic rifle would not be a problem; especially in places with SWAT teams. The only reason I say this is because of those insane people who decide to go on shooting sprees.

I carry a knife anywhere I go; I concealed carry where I am allowed to (to the person who said 'it has to be visible'... can I ask you then why exactly do they call it "concealed carry?"). But, I would make sure one moron with an automatic rifle would not last for long.

But like I said previously, find ways to diagnose mental health issues more early on. Take care of the actual problem instead of blaming law abiding citizen's rights to own weapons.

To anyone who wants to ban these weapons... I fought in Iraq twice for the preservation of our rights through global stability. Good luck taking the ones I have away.

 

[Danoff]

It was written to preserve your rights and freedoms, for your protection. That particular amendment was included in case the people needed to rise up in case of invasion or against the government (remember England and what led up to the Revolution; fearful of a monarchy or dictatorship type government)

The majority opinion in DC vs Heller does a nice job of debunking this myth. The 2nd amendment was fundamentally an expression of a right to self defense. The instance the writers were most concerned with was defense against an aggressive government, and the language they used reflected that. But it does not constrain the amendment - which was specifically designed for self-defense.

 

[Nicksfix]

I carry a knife anywhere I go; I concealed carry where I am allowed to (to the person who said 'it has to be visible'... can I ask you then why exactly do they call it "concealed carry?").

To anyone who wants to ban these weapons... I fought in Iraq twice for the preservation of our rights through global stability. Good luck taking the ones I have away.

+1 👍
Indeed it does have to be concealed (hence "concealed carry") as you stated. A person just cannot go around (where permitted) with their gun exposed, even if it is holstered. The obvious exemption to this is law officials.

A type of situation (visible exposure to an arm) will bring out a bad scenario ... "Mr. X brandished his gun". It then becomes a "he said - she said" case. It usually ends up bad for the carrier, resulting in him or her losing their CCP.

To you ... kudos for the Iraqi conflict in which you were involved. 👍 Thanks !
Agreed, good luck in taking my arms away from me as well. You'll get mine when you pry my cold dead fingers off of them.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Guns are banned here in the UK, it doesn't stop people going around shooting civilians. Gun crime in general though is a small fraction of what is experienced in the US, but I think it is too late for America even if they did want this. Too many people have them, not all of them have licences and those people will not happily hand in the weapon.

America's gun problem is probably beyond repair.

 

[Danoff]

Guns are banned here in the UK, it doesn't stop people going around shooting civilians. Gun crime in general though is a small fraction of what is experienced in the US

You guys have more stabbing problems though. I believe the common comparison is New York vs London, where last time I checked violent crime was much more common in London, but guns were not the weapon of choice.

In 2010 there were 400 more murders in New York than London (London had just 100). This would probably be because guns were used more often in violent crimes in New York than London. In 2010, there were 90,000 more violent crimes in London than New York (New York had 75,000). There were 2000 more rapes in London (New York had just 1000).

Murder happens so infrequently compared to other kinds of crimes that it's tough to call out percentages. If there were 2 murders in New York in a given year for 1 murder in London, you'd say you're twice as likely to be killed in New York. But the fact of the matter is you're not likely to be killed in either.

So which would you prefer? That your murder rate go from 0.00625% to 0.00125%? Or that your violent crime rate go from 2% to 1%. If you choose the latter, then you should feel safer in New York than London.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

The majority opinion in DC vs Heller does a nice job of debunking this myth. The 2nd amendment was fundamentally an expression of a right to self defense. The instance the writers were most concerned with was defense against an aggressive government, and the language they used reflected that. But it does not constrain the amendment - which was specifically designed for self-defense.

It's all in the interpretation.