Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Jan '13 13:28
    The last assault weapons ban does not show desired affect according to a report by the Justice Dept.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/

    It seems people don't really understand what an assault weapon is and support a ban simply because the term sounds scary.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is-an-assault-rifle-really-we-look-at-the-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/

    Is another assault weapons ban going to make people safer or is it merely going to allow some people to falsely believe it will?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Jan '13 13:51
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The last assault weapons ban does not show desired affect according to a report by the Justice Dept.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/

    It seems people don't really understand what an assault weapon is and support a ban simply because the term sounds scary.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is ...[text shortened]... ing to make people safer or is it merely going to allow some people to falsely believe it will?
    The manipulation of language is frequently a key part of political struggles.

    Would you support restrictions on civilians owning fully automatic weapons?
  3. 17 Jan '13 14:04 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The last assault weapons ban does not show desired affect according to a report by the Justice Dept.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/

    It seems people don't really understand what an assault weapon is and support a ban simply because the term sounds scary.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is ...[text shortened]... ing to make people safer or is it merely going to allow some people to falsely believe it will?
    This was from a Bush II era DOJ.

    From the link:

    " The report said although the ban’s reauthorization or expiration could affect gunshot victimizations, predictions were “tenuous.” It said restricting the flow of large-capacity magazines into the United States from abroad might be necessary to achieve the ban’s desired effects.

    But it said it was not known whether mandating further design changes in the outward features of semiautomatic weapons — such as removing all military-style features — would produce measurable benefits beyond restricting ammunition capacity."

    end quote (emphasis added)


    However, a main take-away from the piece is "The report said the relatively rare use of assault weapons in crimes was attributable to a number of factors: Most assault weapons are rifles, which are used much less often than handguns, a number of the weapons were barred from importation before the ban was enacted, and the weapons are expensive and difficult to conceal."

    We cannot rationally assume that the purpose of an assault rifle ban is to significantly decrease the number of murders involving guns, since the total number of AR killings is small to begin with. (Actual figures banned from release, by law!)

    To attack AR restrictions on the basis that they do not significantly reduce these numbers, is a straw man argument. Banning ARs has other objectives. Large numbers of people in the US do not want to say that they sat by helplessly and worse, coldly, doing nothing about Sandy Hook or the other recent (and future) isolated but tragic incidents. They want to be able to say they did something.

    Will it prevent the next one? Who knows? The results may be generations in coming. The results may be cumulative as the American mindset turns away from violence as an essential and permissible, even admired attribute of male macho behavior. In fact, the numbers might not change. But in any case it is a mistake to think that the purpose of an AR ban is to significantly reduce the overall murder rate, and to judge it by those numbers.
  4. 17 Jan '13 14:20
    Originally posted by FMF
    The manipulation of language is frequently a key part of political struggles.

    Would you support restrictions on civilians owning fully automatic weapons?
    Good question.

    If fully automatic weapons had a clear advantage in combat I might consider supporting civilian ownership of them, but there is little evidence of that.

    http://kitup.military.com/2011/12/full-auto-battlefield-necessity.html

    I support restrictions on civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons.
  5. Subscriber WoodPush
    Pusher of wood
    17 Jan '13 22:56
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Good question.

    If fully automatic weapons had a clear advantage in combat I might consider supporting civilian ownership of them, but there is little evidence of that.

    http://kitup.military.com/2011/12/full-auto-battlefield-necessity.html

    I support restrictions on civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons.
    I think you're confusing fully automatic weapons versus fully automatic rifles.

    Are you saying that full auto on a .50 cal M2 has no clear advantage in combat, or no clear strength in suppression?

    Or if you think it does have combat value, would you support legalized civilian use of an M2?
  6. 17 Jan '13 23:52
    Originally posted by FMF
    The manipulation of language is frequently a key part of political struggles.

    Would you support restrictions on civilians owning fully automatic weapons?
    There is no need to support such, because those regulations are in force since 1934.
  7. 18 Jan '13 00:05
    Originally posted by WoodPush
    I think you're confusing fully automatic weapons versus fully automatic rifles.

    Are you saying that full auto on a .50 cal M2 has no clear advantage in combat, or no clear strength in suppression?

    Or if you think it does have combat value, would you support legalized civilian use of an M2?
    The report indicated that full-on auto uses up ammo too fast for the benefit gained. Three shot auto (I suppose the weapon fires three time per trigger pull) gives a greater chance to aim at the target and conserves ammo. This is if I read it more or less correctly.

    A purpose-built crew-served machine gun with belt feed like the M2, would not have these drawbacks or would not be as hindered by capacity.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 Jan '13 00:23
    Originally posted by normbenign
    There is no need to support such, because those regulations are in force since 1934.
    Do you agree with there being restrictions on civilians owning fully automatic weapons?
  9. 18 Jan '13 00:28
    Originally posted by JS357
    This was from a Bush II era DOJ.

    From the link:

    " The report said although the ban’s reauthorization or expiration could affect gunshot victimizations, predictions were “tenuous.” [b]It said restricting the flow of large-capacity magazines into the United States from abroad might be necessary to achieve the ban’s desired effects.


    But it said it wa ...[text shortened]... AR ban is to significantly reduce the overall murder rate, and to judge it by those numbers.[/b]
    "To attack AR restrictions on the basis that they do not significantly reduce these numbers, is a straw man argument."

    Hardly. It is very real to demand a causal connection before banning anything, otherwise freedom, and especially the 2nd amendment is illusory. Besides it is hardly a good way to craft laws of any kind, by citing one reason, ill proven, but emotionally gripping when the real reason is something else.

    Doing something is not doing the right thing, and in fact it may lead to falsely thinking you don't need to do anything else.

    "Will it prevent the next one? Who knows? The results may be generations in coming. The results may be cumulative as the American mindset turns away from violence as an essential and permissible, even admired attribute of male macho behavior."

    This is the straw man, the argument that such a ban MAY have positive results. It may be neutral, or may produce horrible results, such as gun bans have in the past in other places.

    The facts are that at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza had access to a lot of weapons, and he happened to choose to use an AR15. For the close range mayhem he performed, both the shotgun and two handguns were probably more effective. For maximum close range mayhem and killing power, the shotgun with 00 or 000 shot would be the choice of most firearms experts.

    Making bad, wrong or ineffective law, and at the same time violating the rights of the law abiding seems without parallel in doing evil, while having good intentions.
  10. 18 Jan '13 00:31
    Originally posted by FMF
    Do you agree with there being restrictions on civilians owning fully automatic weapons?
    I can live with it, but given the intention and purpose of the 2nd amendment, I think it is wrong, as is the prohibition of short barreled shotguns which happened at the same time.

    Surely, it makes more common sense that banning weapons because they look like military guns.
  11. 18 Jan '13 00:44
    Originally posted by WoodPush
    I think you're confusing fully automatic weapons versus fully automatic rifles.

    Are you saying that full auto on a .50 cal M2 has no clear advantage in combat, or no clear strength in suppression?

    Or if you think it does have combat value, would you support legalized civilian use of an M2?
    The move from the M16 to the M4 as primary battle rifle indicates the brass at least thought the full auto mode wasn't effective, and probably just wasted ammo.

    Obviously, full auto on larger, crew served weapons is very effective. I recall seeing video of a 25mm gattling gun style rotary canon mounted on a Humbee taking out an Iraqi tank.

    These are not infantry weapons, which militiamen would own and bring to battle, either in support of, or contesting their government. That is generally the view of originalists on the 2nd amendment, so I could see select-fire weapons such as the M4 rifle allowed for civilians.

    Another valid view is that the minutemen at Concord and Lexington were protecting canon which the British were seeking, however I believe that those canon were likely not owned by individuals but by the towns or counties.

    Larger weapons would become available to militia men, as they mustered with or against the regular military, depending on whether the enemy was foreign or domestic.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    18 Jan '13 01:18
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The move from the M16 to the M4 as primary battle rifle indicates the brass at least thought the full auto mode wasn't effective, and probably just wasted ammo.

    Obviously, full auto on larger, crew served weapons is very effective. I recall seeing video of a 25mm gattling gun style rotary canon mounted on a Humbee taking out an Iraqi tank.

    These are ...[text shortened]... d with or against the regular military, depending on whether the enemy was foreign or domestic.
    The removal of full auto happened between the M16 and the M16A2 and was a result of lessons learned from Vietnam. (The original M-16 also featured triangular handguards.) In Vietnam, with full auto available, US infantry averaged about one million rounds per kill (according to almost certainly biased statistics). The full auto was replaced by three-round burst to conserve ammunition.

    Not sure if the Spec Ops version has full auto, but I highly doubt it. Those guys are surgeons and I think they'd be offended.
  13. 18 Jan '13 01:41
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The removal of full auto happened between the M16 and the M16A2 and was a result of lessons learned from Vietnam. (The original M-16 also featured triangular handguards.) In Vietnam, with full auto available, US infantry averaged about one million rounds per kill (according to almost certainly biased statistics). The full auto was replaced by three-r ...[text shortened]... has full auto, but I highly doubt it. Those guys are surgeons and I think they'd be offended.
    I remember watching Blackhawk Down, the commander telling his guys to set for single shot to conserve ammo.
  14. 18 Jan '13 02:06
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "To attack AR restrictions on the basis that they do not significantly reduce these numbers, is a straw man argument."

    Hardly. It is very real to demand a causal connection before banning anything, otherwise freedom, and especially the 2nd amendment is illusory. Besides it is hardly a good way to craft laws of any kind, by citing one reason, ill proven ...[text shortened]... ghts of the law abiding seems without parallel in doing evil, while having good intentions.
    "It is very real to demand a causal connection before banning anything,"

    Agreed, but then you should attack the reasons for the ban on AR weapons specifically. Why is just banning AR weapons on the agenda? The stated reason could not have been to significantly reduce overall gun deaths. Only a naive person on either side would allow this argument to be made; knowing that the large majority of gun deaths are by handguns and the ban will not affect them.

    I told you what I thought the real reason was, which was to make people feel like something was being done, so they did not feel powerless. These people are pretty OK with the overall gun death rate as long as is mostly in a part of town they stay away from. They don't want to see Sandy Hooks or Columbines. Will banning ARs help accomplish this? That is the argument that is not a straw man. We should have it. I'm not convinced either way at this point.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    18 Jan '13 02:15 / 2 edits
    This Russian experimental rifle has only two rounds in its burst mode:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94