General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTHE reason for assault weapons ban
There is no other product sold legally in the USA, other than cigarettes, that if used properly will result in death in many cases. At least with cigarettes, it is an unintended consequence rather than the primary purpose. Assault weapons are ostensibly sold in this country specifically FOR the primary purpose of killing or injuring in the act self-defense. Otherwise, they have no legal use. I think most people would agree with this.
But with few if any exceptions, assault weapons are simply not used by private citizens for the purpose for which they are sold. They are used solely for offense, not defense. Every time. The serial misuse of assault weapons results in death, injury and clear instances of psychological terror for non-consumers and consumers alike and have the ultimate effect of compromising the rights and safety of those effected, directly and indirectly. And they do so while being sold under the premise of doing just the opposite.
In this country, any product that results in scores of injuries and deaths and far-reaching secondary damage as a result of widespread misuse where there is no documented benefit is taken off the market.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Neither of those is offensive or defensive.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)OneMoreDemocrat
(913 posts)you're right.
I'll have to check out Field and Stream next time I go to the Doctor's office.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm resigned to fact gun culture can't contain themselves for even a week.
Really is damn disgusting.
ashling
(25,771 posts)ashling
(25,771 posts).223 caliber viagra
doc03
(35,363 posts)Kaleva
(36,340 posts)"The first of its kind, and the only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you'll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense"
http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/acr.asp
morningfog
(18,115 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Hunting for the table or to protect the table seems a reasonable thing to most.
burrowowl
(17,645 posts)would be unusable or not there. I am for hunting if you use the meat and a good hunter fells his game with 1 shot, not strafing the animal!
NickB79
(19,258 posts)To drop a mature deer. Thus, no meat to use since the animal would have run off wounded. The .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO round isn't legal in most states, because it's not powerful enough to humanely kill a deer or black bear.
Though that same round is very effective at pest control if you have woodchucks, jackrabbits or coyotes on your property.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)Having grown up on a farm, I've seen the offensiveness of how store-bought beef, pork and chicken is produced.
If you want to eat meat, a life of suffering in a factory farm followed up with a bolt through the brain or a slit throat is far more offensive to me than a bullet through a deer that's lived it's life free in the woods.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is practice for one and/or the other. I can't believe the arguments you people make.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)It is a sport enjoyed for its own merits, and the skill of the players. The violent nature of the club is not necessary or relevant to the enjoyment of the game. Same with target shooting.
ashling
(25,771 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
Kaleva
(36,340 posts)Maybe he didn't see the ads marketing the weapon for target shooting and hunting. Or maybe he was confused by what was meant by target shooting and hunting.
He was a person who killed his 81 year old grand mother with a hammer and who never should have been released on society to kill again.
tblue
(16,350 posts)in that its contaminated and could harm a person. But a gun you can still buy. When they police peanut butter more than firearms, makes no sense to me.
doc03
(35,363 posts)a child? But a nut job can buy and murder 20 kids with an Bushmaster and it is OK.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Most are used for target practice, hunting, competitive shooting and recreational shooting (other legal uses by the way).
They are rarely used in crimes compared to handguns.
They are used for self-defense.
But when they are used to kill people illegally, the results are tragic.
Last Stand
(472 posts)Isn't this a clear case where the risks outweigh the benefits? Seriously, an entire country mourns the tragedy of a massacre at a grammar school. Literally, millions of people stayed awake at night thinking about it. People are pushed to the brink with fear and trauma because of this. All so that people can shoot bears or go target shooting? Seriously?
And who has successfully used assault weapons for self defense when a less dangerous weapon wouldn't do?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Last Stand
(472 posts)And literally MILLIONS of people are suffering emotionally because of it. It's the second-hand smoke effect.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yet the left should be potentially spending a VAST amount of our political capital on this...instead of pushing for gun control proposals that might actually have a measurable effect on homicide? All because a segment of the population feels bad that these weapons exist?
Oh, for fuck sake...
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Good job
Last Stand
(472 posts)There have been at least a dozen mass killings with Assault Weapons in the last 5 years (this does not include killings of <4 victims), over 150 deaths and even more injured, hundreds more lives of loved ones changed forever and an entire nation of tens of millions of people held hostage to fear, outrage and grief over the events. Read on: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php
This is the cost (in human terms only) for these heinous acts. It matters less what percentage or body count than the the fact that these events have millions of innocent people people living in fear and feeling less safe for the sake of the questionable needs of the few who own these weapons.
Keep you smiley faces for more appropriate topics.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The Bushmaster in Newtown wasn't an AW. I don't see why people call pointing that out a distraction when the subject is banning assault weapons
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)I was only confronting the hyperbole of their "sole use".
shintao
(487 posts)We need to cut freeway speeds down to 35 and save lives. Stop building those sport cars that go over a 100, and cut the speeds down to 35. Those cars kill 3.5 times more adults and children than guns do. We are getting our prioritys mixed up.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)practice or whatever. But they are coveted for what they are - lethal, tactical weapons. They are attractive to callous, vile people. As poster above indicated, the greedy, callous bastards couldn't even remove their tactical ads for a week or so.
I wish gun apologists could refrain from making excuses for these lethal weapons manufacturers/marketers and people that drool over these weapons.
BTW - a lot of those "target shooters" use targets that resemble people, including Obama. I guess that is good wholesome fun for some. Damn, Damn, Damn.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)those 'target shooters' use targets that resemble people, including Obama"?
Did you just make that up?
Or are you a gun nut?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)That could never happen
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)bhikkhu
(10,722 posts)and then try to argue that these aren't some sick sociopathic bastards who really shouldn't be allowed near deadly weapons.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are OK with you.
Or here's one inspired by gun cultist poster boy, Georgie Zimmerman.
?w=360&h=240&crop=1
Christ, the gun cultists will do anything to have a little fun and preserve their "hobby."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)While I agree with you these should be banned, realize they are sold for hunting and target shooting. Most of these weapons are used for that.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)shintao
(487 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)If that will make them less scary then yes.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)What you do want people to agree with is that those reasons, and perceived needs, just are not worth it.
Then we can remove them.
shintao
(487 posts)China might want to help you out with funds and propaganda materials. Help can come from some of the strangest places.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Besides, they sell plenty of crap arms to the people of the US...negative PR is certainly not in their best interest.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)NickB79
(19,258 posts)As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.
UPDATE: An autopsy that was conducted later determined that Guerena was hit 23 times.
The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.
Not a successful case, mind you, but then again he was dramatically outnumbered.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Whovian
(2,866 posts)shintao
(487 posts)Cars used properly can kill 32,310 in 2011, and they did. No one intentually uses a car improperly, right? Of course not, that is why we call it an accident, like an accidental shooting, right? Some 9,146 gun deaths in 2011. Same thing, same idea.
Now do you want to ban cars that are 3 1/2 times more deadly? 2,793 children died in 2009 from guns fired, but traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for children ages 3 to 14.
I really think we need to do something about cars and stopping highway deaths. Public transportation or computerized road beds are the answer. We need to stop building Sport looking cars with so much horsepower and drop speeds down to 35 on the freeways.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)Which has been a perfectly legal and acceptable reason to own weapons since the dawn of time. Does this strike you as unacceptable in some way?
Last Stand
(472 posts)there is absolutely no evidence that they are used in this way. Within the act of a crime, they are used only to commit offenses, not stop them.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)Since most cases of self-defense with guns typically end without bullets being fired in the first place, there are few police reports filed to begin with. With the millions of assault rifles in the US, I would find it very, very hard to believe that they have ONLY been used to commit offenses in all the years they've been on the market.
Hell, I used a deer rifle to defend my family when I was 17. My mom actually did call 911. When I tried to tell the police what happened, they ignored me because I was "just a kid."
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and just say they want to ban semi automatic rifles and limit magazine capacity for all guns to ten rounds. Just plain old language that we can attach to actual real world stuff.
triplepoint
(431 posts)-if its sale/use can be shown to violate any part of the U.S. Constitution. By "NEW" I mean the newly configured Supreme Court --after the President and Congress get through the long drawn-out process that is required in order to place a new member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I state this as a non-lawyer, but with a simple understanding of the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt that Congress will do anything for meaningful and effective assault weapon/rifle ban legislation. The banning of ownership of assault rifles/weapons appears to have succeeded at the state level...somewhat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Assault_weapons_bans_in_other_states
That indicates to me that an amended Second Amendment may be possible.
.
.
Until we get to a comprehensive/national ban on sale and ownership of assault weapons/rifles, we'll continue to live and experience Koyaanisqatsi
.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reference Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"...We have to save each other because all victims are equal and none is more equal than others. It's everyone's duty to start the avalanche."
--Bartholomew "Barley" Scott Blair, "The Russia House"
A Moment of Introspecting a "Kid"
So, what could a "kid" be thinking nowadays....Let's say for a moment that I'm a kid, and I want to go to the movies....but it's not safe there anymore. Well, there's always the Mall...but it's not safe there anymore...Well, I can play with my friends in the schoolyard...but it's not safe there anymore. I could be shot in any of those three places. I've read and seen it on the TV and the Internet.
See what kind of world we've made for them? Do you see it now? How can children "be the future" if they're slain beforehand?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Weapons are designed to make it easier for us to force compliance from others. Sometimes just the threat of violence is enough, other times it becomes necessary to go beyond this, the weapons must be used, and the end result in the worst case is that someone dies.
That's why we call them weapons.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this makes you uncomfortable. You might perhaps argue that in a civilized society men and women will never have the need to arm themselves with anything more dangerous than a disapproving glance or harsh word. If not, then the fact that firearms were designed as weapons is completely irrelevant.
Captain Boomerang
(194 posts)1. I may have to defend my home from Christian Conservative Righties who keep talking about civil War II, secession, and forcing their pro-life views on me.
2. I may have to defend myself from more than one person including cops, TSA agents, FBI, ATF, CIA, NSA, LMNOP, and 12 other alphabet organizations that have assault rifles for "legitimate" reasons.
3. Because the 2nd Amendment says; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (It's about being ready to defend your homeland from a-holes both foreign and domestic.)
4. It sure would be nice to be able to buy one legally than to support a criminal enterprise.
I am sure there are other reasons,but those are the ones I would argue.
jal777
(59 posts)it has to be from an official .gov site such as batf or doj.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)saved innocent people.
Has anyone heard a story like that?
sarisataka
(18,765 posts)The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.
The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)sarisataka
(18,765 posts)so it has happened. I doubt anyone would say it is common. OTH the media gives the impression that they are commonly used in crime, not so much.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)i like the sound of Offensive Weapons Privilege Act, if you take the word assault out, it removes the 'it didn't work before' argument
Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)Millions of guns out there ever day and only s small small small percentage are used inappropriately.