Things besides guns we should ban to give ourselves the delusion of safety

[Not G. Ivingname]

By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

...

That isn't an Assault Rifle. The defenition of an Assault Rifle is: "A military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge." Technically, any rifle can accept a "large" magazines. Making a gun that accepts one box with more ammo than another box which has the same connection points is not very easy.

Besides, MOST crimes are done with handguns (85% by some studies), not rifles modeled after military weapons.

 

[ElPatron]

By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

Then you are wrong. That is not an assault rifle.

It's a semi-automatic rifle just like any other. Military-styled assault rifles are only used in about 1% of crimes and they really don't increase the death toll.

If you remember Breivik, he used a Mini-14. It looks just like a lot of hunting rifles.

Spoiler

This is an AR15. Both fire comparable calibers (.223 and 5.56 are nearly the same in terms of lethality, you just shouldn't use 5.56 in .223 weapons).

The big differences are in the operational mechanism, the looks and the sights. The AR15 sights are elevated in comparison to the Mini-14 - that means that it's slightly easier to hit targets at hunting ranges because you're not hitting almost 2 inches under the point of aim.

Now, don't tell me that the black plastic makes the gun deadlier.

Spoiler

Ironically, the 100-round drum magazine jammed.

 

[Leadfinger]

By "assault rifle" I mean a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. These are perfectly legal in most U.S. states and it was in fact this very kind of weapon the Colorado theater shooter used.

Then you are wrong. That is not an assault rifle.

It's a semi-automatic rifle just like any other. Military-styled assault rifles are only used in about 1% of crimes and they really don't increase the death toll.

If you remember Breivik, he used a Mini-14. It looks just like a lot of hunting rifles.

Spoiler

This is an AR15. Both fire comparable calibers (.223 and 5.56 are nearly the same in terms of lethality, you just shouldn't use 5.56 in .223 weapons).

The big differences are in the operational mechanism, the looks and the sights. The AR15 sights are elevated in comparison to the Mini-14 - that means that it's slightly easier to hit targets at hunting ranges because you're not hitting almost 2 inches under the point of aim.

Now, don't tell me that the black plastic makes the gun deadlier.

Spoiler

Ironically, the 100-round drum magazine jammed.

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

 

[bizentine]

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

 

[Leadfinger]

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

The M16A4 is the battle rifle issued to the USMC. Automatic fire may be the the primary defining characteristic of an assault rifle according to your definition, but not according to the Marines' definition.

 

[ElPatron]

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Irrelevant. The M16A4 is not available for purchase, only an "assault weapon" semi-automatic AR15.

Also, the definition of machine-gun in the US is "more than one shot per trigger pull", which makes the M16A4 or A2 a machine-gun. If you look at the parts inside they are just full auto weapons with a counter that blocks firing.

You are grasping at straws with that argument.

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

3 round burst = automatic fire. Just because it's not full auto (will expend all ammunition until the magazine goes empty or trigger is released) doesn't mean it's not an assault rifle.

It was designed for combat under 300m, has a pistol grip, detachable magazines and features select fire - it's an assault rifle.

 

[bizentine]

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Irrelevant. The M16A4 is not available for purchase, only an "assault weapon" semi-automatic AR15.

Also, the definition of machine-gun in the US is "more than one shot per trigger pull", which makes the M16A4 or A2 a machine-gun. If you look at the parts inside they are just full auto weapons with a counter that blocks firing.

You are grasping at straws with that argument.

What about the M-16A4. It isn't fully automatic. Are you saying it isn't an assault rifle? How about the Canadian L1A1?

Automatic fire is the primary defining characteristic of an "assault" weapon.
So, no. Those are not assault rifles.

Just because you used it in Call of Duty, does not make it an assault weapon.

3 round burst = automatic fire. Just because it's not full auto (will expend all ammunition until the magazine goes empty or trigger is released) doesn't mean it's not an assault rifle.

It was designed for combat under 300m, has a pistol grip, detachable magazines and features select fire - it's an assault rifle.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm more of a "word" person that a "gun" person. I don't know what guns have what besides the ones I own, but my point is that it isn't an "assault" weapon if it is semi-automatic.

 

[ElPatron]

You'll have to forgive me, I'm more of a "word" person that a "gun" person. I don't know what guns have what besides the ones I own, but my point is that it isn't an "assault" weapon if it is semi-automatic.

No problem, I was just going berserk with all the assault rifle thing.

But unfortunately the term "assault weapon" is. It's a semi-automatic clone of a military weapon that accepts hicap magazines and a pistol grip. Several countries ban the so called "assault" features.

Assault weapon =/= assault rifle. The media usually use both interchangeably.

 

[bizentine]

Assault weapon =/= assault rifle. The media usually use both interchangeably.

Assault weapon in the sense you are talking is only defined that way in certain legal documents such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and a few other laws. So, while "assault weapon" might be a convenient legal term, the definition of the word is unchanged. It's much like calling a violin a "fiddle," It isn't entirely accurate, but it's been uses so popularly to describe the word that it's become a meme of sort, but at the end of the day a violin is not, in fact, a "fiddle" nor are military-style semi-automatic weapons "assault" weapons.

 

[ElPatron]

So, while "assault weapon" might be a convenient legal term, the definition of the word is unchanged.

The jig is that "assault rifle" is a defined term and "assault weapon" isn't the same term. Call it a marketing ploy, say that the term is based on emotional arguments and not in actual facts, etc.

But my country does ban "assault features", what should I call to the banned weapons? I am ashamed that our society got to the point of implying an intent to an inherently inanimate object, but if "assault weapon" has a totally different meaning than "assault rifle" I don't see why should the term be considered incorrect.

 

[bizentine]

but if "assault weapon" has a totally different meaning than "assault rifle" I don't see why should the term be considered incorrect.

That's kindof my point. "Assault Weapon" has two possible *denotations* 1. A weapon classified as an assault weapon (i.e. automatic fire) or 2. A weapon witch an assault can be preformed with (i.e. Any weapon ever). "Assault weapon" meaning things like semi-automatic rifles stylized to look like an *actual* assault weapon is a fairly new term, and I believe would be classified as a *connotation* and really just a term of convenience.

I guess it really comes down to if you suckle the tit of Merriam-Webster or not. Because while they may think that "Assault Weapon" is an ok term to use for a weapon that is "Assault" only in appearance, these are also the people who decided that "Thingamajig" was a gem of a word that just couldn't possibly not be considered an actual component of the English language. Personally, however, I like to think the dictionary froze just before you could add words by petition.

 

[David_G]

We should ban water.

 

[ElPatron]

That's kindof my point. "Assault Weapon" has two possible *denotations* 1. A weapon classified as an assault weapon (i.e. automatic fire) or 2. A weapon witch an assault can be preformed with (i.e. Any weapon ever).

Pretty much this. You're implying intention to an inanimate object. Also, I'm pretty sure if you have the intent to harm someone, any object can become "assault [object]".

The "Assault Weapon" spiel was obviously created to ride on the fear towards "assault rifles". I don't know any "assault SMG" or "assault LMG". But the assault rifle was the evil baby spawned by Nazi Black Magic during WWII and harnessed by the Commies to create the Aye Kay Forty Seven.

If you hate guns, what better term to describe a weapon than one coined by Hitler himself?

This argument is as pointless as the "art game" argument. I still use the term "art game" because it's easier than come up with a new one.

 

[James Mann]

Guns are specifically designed for wounding or killing an intended target. Not for self defense, the main difference being that self defense can be achieved in non-lethal ways.

As the sole intention of a gun is to cause fatal wounds, it has no real place with a civilian whom of course should have no reason to need to kill something.

Of course this problem can be broken down. Shotguns and rifles are more designed for hunting, so have at least some place in a civilian market, older guns are often sought after by collectors and rarely used outside of decoration, again having a place. The main problem in all of this is the standard handgun. The majority of homicides, suicides and accidental death cause by a firearm are caused by handguns, and the sad thing is they have no other use other than a tool for one human being to kill another. When you train with a handgun in a firing range, you are training to hit a human target. This has NO place in a civilian market.

Handguns are useful for military as a sidearm and at a stretch a police force; not civilians. When civilians get a hold of them their only purpose becomes shooting a person and practicing for shooting a person.

So while firearms in general should probably not be taken completely away from civilians, tighter restrictions on who can get what for what purpose should be imposed. Having a gun because you feel safer knowing you can brutally murder someone should you get a bit too freaked out should not be a valid enough reason to own a firearm, a number of self defense measures are available that do not require murder.

-

As for the rest of the argument, the obvious one first:
Natural illness and accidents are self inflicted? really?

And the alcohol.

Firstly, a small amount of Alcohol has been proven to be healthy for you; and while it's true that incidents arise when too much alcohol is consumed, you're kinda missing something there; That the large majority of these incidents are SELF INFLICTED; that is, in a large number of these apparent deaths cause by alcohol the person whom died was the person injesting the alcohol, while the number you quoted for guns was homicide, so the person killed someone else; that is a very significant difference. It means that with alcohol, if you dont want to put yourself at risk, you just know not to drink, a fate not so avoidable when you're facing down the barrel of a gun, you can't just say 'im not getting a gun, therefore i will not get shot' while you can say 'im not going to drink, therefore im not going to accidently drive off a bridge or get severe liver damage.

Now that we've presented alcohol in the same light you presented the gun related crimes, lets flip it, and present the gun related crimes in the light you presented the alcohol related ones, by which i mean lets look at ALL gun related deaths shall we?

In America, its not homicide that gets the biggest body count believe it or not, the USA boasts a suicide rate thats actually higher than its homicide rate

"Firearm?In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States"
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)
Considerably higher than you're 12,632, and higher than you're suspiciously even 25,000 alcohol related deaths.

And about that, the 'alcohol related deaths' encompasses a massive amount of different actual causes, the number related to those where alcohol is merely a contributing factor, and when another person is killed the large majority are accidental (road accidents) which obviously doesn't excuse it; but its a much less evil than the ease of a premeditated murder or even killing spree. You know how much harder a killing spree would be if you were completely hammered?

 

[bizentine]

As the sole intention of a gun is to cause fatal wounds, it has no real place with a civilian whom of course should have no reason to need to kill something.

I both agree and disagree.

If you have a need to defend yourself, you have a need to kill someone. Lets say you taze a guy who tries to mug you. What do you think will happen if he EVER sees you again? More than likely, he will try to exact revenge. A gun is not a tool used for winning battles, it is a tool for winning wars. Quite frankly, I don't see why I would mercifully incapacitate someone who intends to cause myself, my family, or my friends direct harm. A police officer who has to wrangle in someone who is mentally handicapped, absolutely, but *me*? If someone steps to me, I will end them, and I would hope you would be as protective of yourself and those around you. So, in that sense, yes, even in self defense a gun is used for killing people.

On the other hand, I would argue that *bullets* are designed to kill people, and guns themselves are simply designed to focus an explosion into a single direction. Rubber bullets, bean-bag rounds, ect are both non-lethal and still fired by those gun-things you claim are designed to kill people.

Guns are a tool. A very efficient tool. And people who mean to cause harm will always use the most efficient tool available. If guns didn't exist, we'd likely be having a similar conversation about swords or crossbows, and in 40 years I imagine we'll be having the same conversation about lasers or some nonsense. The core problem is that people are violent, and uneducated.

EDIT: Criminals will always have guns, and your suggestion that they should be given an advantage over law-abiding citizens greatly worries me. Shooting sprees are almost always targeted at places that you can't carry a firearm. I can only imagine if that was "everywhere".