Should America ban the AR 15 and AK 47/assault weapons?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 81
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I say no.  They provide protection against the following:

- The biggest mass shooter in history; tyrannical governments.
- It sets a precedent to ban all guns in the nation once people get used to certain gun bans.  Canada for instance allows cities to ban hand guns now or Treadeau wants to get that done.

They are also responsible for very little crime.  When Bill Clinton banned these guns in 1994 for 10 years, it had very little impact on homicide.
#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The biggest mass shooter in history; tyrannical governments.
how? The US government has tanks, armed drones, jets etc. If the government decides they are going to do something and you use a weapon to try to stop them, then you are a criminal (how they would see it at least) and will use whatever force is necessary to restore law and order. Your dinky AR isn't going to mean a damn thing compared to the US military, and the heavily militarized police. 

 It sets a precedent to ban all guns in the nation once people get used to certain gun bans.  Canada for instance allows cities to ban hand guns now or Treadeau wants to get that done.
this is a dumb argument. That's like saying if we ban rape, then all sexual acts will be banned. Or, if we allow gay marriage, then people could marry anything. The point of this type of argument is make people afraid to prevent any kind of change.  You can defend your home just fine with a shotgun if that is what you want. You can hunt with a bolt action rifle or a shotgun. No one needs to own an assault rifle for any legitimate purpose.

They are also responsible for very little crime.  When Bill Clinton banned these guns in 1994 for 10 years, it had very little impact on homicide.
ok, but they are still extremely dangerous and have no legitimate reason that they need to be owned. a mass shooting with an AR is extremely bloody. 
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your dinky AR isn't going to mean a damn thing compared to the US military, and the heavily militarized police. 
It worked previously.  The Nazi government for example, didn't bomb Jewish households in order to kill them; they just took their guns and sent them off to concentration camps.  The Chinese government didn't bomb the houses of people they didn't like, they just took their guns and sent them off to concentration camps.  For some reason, the government doesn't like to bomb houses but if the government became tyranical, they would disarm us and send the people they don't like in concentration camps.  We already see this in the United States with undocumented immigrants since in my state, I don't think they don't let undocumented immigrants have guns.  If they are allowed to have guns, then deportations would plummet.

That's like saying if we ban rape, then all sexual acts will be banned.
Rape is violent, consensual sex isin't.  Violent things that hurt people physically are banned to the best of my knowledge.

Or, if we allow gay marriage, then people could marry anything.
The number of people who support legalized polygamy for instance (something that I support in the name of freedom, but this is off topic) has increased dramatically since gay marriage was legalized.  I predict eventually polygamy will be legal just like gay marriage is right now.

No one needs to own an assault rifle for any legitimate purpose.
There are some uses to owning a gun that can fire bullets very quickly; an example is they can be used in hunting if you see a bear in the woods.  You can't kill a bear with a shotgun or a pistol.  If I were a hunter in that situation, I would want an AK 47 to protect me against the bear.

 a mass shooting with an AR is extremely bloody. 
Lots of people also die with conventional homicide.  Overall though, mass shootings account for a very small portion of homicides and all "assault weapons" are responsible for about 4% of homicides.  I'd say the overall homicide rate is a bigger problem than mass shootings because homicide encompasses mass shootings.

#4
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
what do you think of the argument that the assualt rifle is no different than any other semi automatic rifle? or that there are other guns that dont look as lethal but are in fact just as lethal? 
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
AR-15 are rarely used by criminals.

Mostly owned by deplorables.
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
It worked previously.  The Nazi government for example, didn't bomb Jewish households in order to kill them; they just took their guns and sent them off to concentration camps. 
This was almost 100 years ago. The difference in technology between a civilian weapon and the military was tiny. In fact much of the german military was still using bolt action rifles, virtually the same weapons that civilians would have. That is nowhere near the same as today. The US military could kill you without you ever even seeing them with a drone. The idea that a guy with an AR is any sort of serious threat to the US military is a joke. 

 For some reason, the government doesn't like to bomb houses but if the government became tyranical, they would disarm us and send the people they don't like in concentration camps.
if the government decided to do that, why would an AR stop them? they have millions of soldiers, they have tanks and god only knows all the weapons they have. You are not a threat to your government. if the military decided to back the government, then it doesn't matter how many rifles you own, they would win. 

That's like saying if we ban rape, then all sexual acts will be banned.
Rape is violent, consensual sex isin't.  Violent things that hurt people physically are banned to the best of my knowledge.
it's the same argument you are making. they are 2 different kinds of sex (one consensual and one not). But if we ban one, then we are in danger of banning the other. So if we ban one type of gun, then obviously we would ban all of them, right?

Or, if we allow gay marriage, then people could marry anything.
The number of people who support legalized polygamy for instance (something that I support in the name of freedom, but this is off topic) has increased dramatically since gay marriage was legalized.  I predict eventually polygamy will be legal just like gay marriage is right now.
so your argument is that people will be exposed to something, realize it isn't that bad, and make an informed choice about other things? And you want to prevent them from being able to make a choice? Do you not see how shitty that is? You are afraid that when people are provided more information, they will decide to do things you don't like. So you want to endanger lives today to prevent them from having that information.

There are some uses to owning a gun that can fire bullets very quickly; an example is they can be used in hunting if you see a bear in the woods.  You can't kill a bear with a shotgun or a pistol.  If I were a hunter in that situation, I would want an AK 47 to protect me against the bear.
if you can't kill a bear without an automatic weapon, then you have no business hunting. You can absolutely kill a bear with a shotgun or a semi-auto hunting rifle. 

Lots of people also die with conventional homicide.  Overall though, mass shootings account for a very small portion of homicides and all "assault weapons" are responsible for about 4% of homicides.  I'd say the overall homicide rate is a bigger problem than mass shootings because homicide encompasses mass shootings.
this is a distraction argument. IE, more people die in pools than in the ocean, so we should only have protection in pools and no lifeguards at beaches on the ocean.

There are lots of other problems too, but that doesn't mean assault rifles aren't a problem. We can deal with multiple problems. We don't have to allow someone to go on shooting rampages with automatic weapons just because there is also an issue with handguns. 

#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
what do you think of the argument that the assualt rifle is no different than any other semi automatic rifle? or that there are other guns that dont look as lethal but are in fact just as lethal? 
I would argue an AR ban doesn't go far enough. I would advocate for all automatic weapons to be banned. Ideally, something like canada's system too where high capacity mags are also illegal. It's hard to shoot an entire class in a school with mags that only hold 5 rounds. And if you need more than 5 rounds for hunting, then you are a really shitty hunter. 

Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The US military could kill you without you ever even seeing them with a drone.
The US military would rather enslave people than kill them with drones.  The Nazis could have bombed Jewish houses but they instead chose to enslave Jews because it was profitable.

 if the military decided to back the government, then it doesn't matter how many rifles you own, they would win. 
You sure about that?  There are more armed civilians in the US than there are soliders.

So if we ban one type of gun, then obviously we would ban all of them, right?
If we ban certain guns, people get used to it.  When there is another mass shooting that happened with a handgun, people would want to ban that gun as well.  It's much easier to add new gun restrictions than it is to remove existing ones.

so your argument is that people will be exposed to something, realize it isn't that bad, and make an informed choice about other things? And you want to prevent them from being able to make a choice?
I didn't say that.  I'm saying that if we ban certain guns, then people will get used to it.  When there is another mass shooting that takes place, people are going to want to ban whatever gun was used in the shooting.  When that gun is banned, some less powerful gun will be used in a shooting.  People will want that banned.  We see this in the U.K.  Guns are very hard to get in the UK.  When criminals resorted to stabbing people they wanted to kill, the UK is talking now about banning knives.

No matter how much you disarm people, there will always be murder.  It is what it is.

if you can't kill a bear without an automatic weapon, then you have no business hunting. You can absolutely kill a bear with a shotgun or a semi-auto hunting rifle. 
I don't think this is the case.  Bears have tough armor.  I'd rather arm yourself with the best gun you can get so you can kill the bear and save your life.

We don't have to allow someone to go on shooting rampages with automatic weapons just because there is also an issue with handguns. 
We don't allow anyone to shoot anyone else period.  But we can allow them to have the AK 47 to protect themselves.  When Bill Clinton banned them in 1994, it had little impact on overall homicide.  AK 47 bans don't work.
#9
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I would advocate for all automatic weapons to be banned.
They aren't technically illegal, but they're already heavily restricted. You have to get a license to buy one. Furthermore, they're extremely expensive, largely due to the fact that it's illegal to buy an automatic weapon that wasn't already in the civilian market since 1980-something. Actual automatic weapons haven't been used in mass shootings in at least the last three decades, if I recall correctly.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Almost all gun deaths are from semi-automatic weapons including handguns.
#11
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep.

#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The US military would rather enslave people than kill them with drones.  The Nazis could have bombed Jewish houses but they instead chose to enslave Jews because it was profitable.
i'm sure that was part of it. but a large part of it was to hide what they were doing. Most germans had no idea the jews were being killed. The camps were to get the jews away from main urban centers so that when they began killing them, it wouldn't be common knowledge. 

You sure about that?  There are more armed civilians in the US than there are soliders.
true. but you are now talking about having millions of armed revolutionaries. Once are at that point, then it is the numbers that is the issue, not the weapons they possess. Millions of people will be a threat to the government either way. Your AR is pretty irrelevant to the issue. 

so your argument is that people will be exposed to something, realize it isn't that bad, and make an informed choice about other things? And you want to prevent them from being able to make a choice?
I didn't say that.  I'm saying that if we ban certain guns, then people will get used to it.  When there is another mass shooting that takes place, people are going to want to ban whatever gun was used in the shooting.  When that gun is banned, some less powerful gun will be used in a shooting.  People will want that banned.  We see this in the U.K.  Guns are very hard to get in the UK.  When criminals resorted to stabbing people they wanted to kill, the UK is talking now about banning knives.
you just confirmed my point. If people ban some guns and realize their lives are the same or better, then they will be ok with banning more guns. And when their lives are the same or better, they may ban all guns. You are afraid that when people realize they don't need guns to be safe, that they will make a choice you don't like. You don't want to take basic safety measures because you are afraid people will be ok with out guns once they start to live with less of them. You are afraid people will see the truth. 

No matter how much you disarm people, there will always be murder.  It is what it is.
very true. But a murderer with an AR can kill alot more people than a murderer with a knife. Banning guns isn't about preventing crime, it is about reducing the severity of the crime committed. 

I don't think this is the case.  Bears have tough armor.
umm, you might be thinking of a turtle. Bears do not have armor. they have fur. 

 I'd rather arm yourself with the best gun you can get so you can kill the bear and save your life.
so why not a flamethrower? or grenades, or a rocket launcher? All those would deal with a bear too. If you think people should be allowed to arm themselves with the best weapons available, then everyone should own belt fed MGs and nuclear weapons. 

We don't allow anyone to shoot anyone else period.  But we can allow them to have the AK 47 to protect themselves.  When Bill Clinton banned them in 1994, it had little impact on overall homicide.  AK 47 bans don't work.
the point of banning guns isn't to reduce the number of crimes. it is to reduce the severity of crimes. someone who wants to murder someone can do it with a gun or a knife. But if you have an AR you can easily kill a dozen people in a few seconds. If you have a knife, you can only kill a few. 
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Almost all gun deaths are from semi-automatic weapons including handguns.
very true. Which is why the AR ban needs to go with much more comprehensive gun reform. mandatory background checks. limits on mag sizes etc. Banning ARs is mostly just for show. You have to go much deeper to really address the problem. But it is a good 1st step. 

#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
why would you do that? ban all import and manufacturing of larger magazines. Make owning them have stiff financial penalties. Having a 30 round mag might be fun, but if getting caught with it will ruin you financially, then why would you risk it? I mean, if you ever end up using that weapon in self defense (as you claim it is for) then you are totally fucked. in the 1st few years, yeah there will still be lots of them around. but after a few years of them being illegal to manufacture or own, supply of them will start to dry up. 
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
but if getting caught with it...

lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
again, there is no reason for that. If you take your gun to a shooting range, you're caught. If you ever use it in self defense, you're caught. If you ever use your gun anywhere but in a secluded spot where no one can see, you could be caught. So the simple fact of owning one would be dangerous, assuming you ever actually use it. 

And once you prevent new ones from being manufactured and sold, the supply starts to dry up so no one can get new ones. The problem doesn't get solved over night, it will take years, maybe decades, to get the bulk of them out of circulation. but you'll get there. 

#18
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
how? The US government has tanks, armed drones, jets etc. If the government decides they are going to do something and you use a weapon to try to stop them, then you are a criminal (how they would see it at least) and will use whatever force is necessary to restore law and order. Your dinky AR isn't going to mean a damn thing compared to the US military, and the heavily militarized police. 
We can see how that worked in Afghanistan and Vietnam🙄🙄
#19
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
lol @ stop and frisk for proper magazine size.
It’s obvious the end goal is to ban all guns.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you take your gun to a shooting range, you're caught.
Lol, no

If you ever use it in self defense, you're caught.
lol, no.

The only way a policeman with a badge is going to get an illegal magazine is by search and seizure. I don't know how you can think any of these scenarios happen in the real world.



#21
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The only way a policeman with a badge is going to get an illegal magazine is by search and seizure. I don't know how you can think any of these scenarios happen in the real world.
What policeman?
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If you take your gun to a shooting range, you're caught.
Lol, no
make sure the law includes a section that penalizes gun ranges for failing to report. If your business will be destroyed by allowing, alot of places won't allow it. 

If you ever use it in self defense, you're caught.
lol, no.

The only way a policeman with a badge is going to get an illegal magazine is by search and seizure. I don't know how you can think any of these scenarios happen in the real world.
what are you talking about? If you use a gun in self defense, then the police are going to come. And if you used an illegal weapon part, you would get arrested (in this hypothetical scenario where these mags are illegal). 

At this point, it would be more trouble than its worth for most people to keep them. They wouldn't be able to use them without severe risk. 
#23
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you use a gun in self defense, then the police are going to come. And if you used an illegal weapon part, you would get arrested (in this hypothetical scenario where these mags are illegal). 
I really don't know what to say to that. If someone uses a gun to save their life, and that gun has a magazine that holds more rounds than the arbitrary number you decided was "high-capacity", they get arrested? Wow. I just don't know what to say.
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
I really don't know what to say to that. If someone uses a gun to save their life, and that gun has a magazine that holds more rounds than the arbitrary number you decided was "high-capacity", they get arrested? Wow. I just don't know what to say.
let me phrase it this way. if someone threw a brick of cocaine at someone to defend themselves, should they get a pass for possession of a brick of cocaine just because they used it to defend themselves?. It is highly illegal to own cocaine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending yourself. But that illegal item didn't pop into existence at that moment. You had been breaking the law long before you needed to defend yourself.

So, yeah. In this hypothetical scenario where high capacity mags are illegal, if you are caught with one then that is a crime. What you were doing with your illegal item is irrelevant. Good on you for protecting yourself, but of course there should be consequences if you are caught with an illegal item. 

#25
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
But i love my AK's
#26
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
let me phrase it this way. if someone threw a brick of cocaine at someone to defend themselves, should they get a pass for possession of a brick of cocaine just because they used it to defend themselves?. It is highly illegal to own cocaine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending yourself. But that illegal item didn't pop into existence at that moment. You had been breaking the law long before you needed to defend yourself.
Yeah, I get that part. I don't question that that would be how such a law would work. What I'm trying to figure out is the logic behind such a law. In this theoretical world, various guns and features thereof are banned to protect people. But if some criminal is going after me, I don't see how my life is being protected if the tool that could save my life is illegal.  Maybe I don't need more than 5 bullets for hunting, but that's not life or death. If I need 6 bullets for self-defense, then I guess I die in the name of saving lives?
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Canada isn't the U.S and logically an assault rifle isn't the best tool for the requirements of the day to day criminal. Way more comfortable to stick a hand gun down your pants.

Nonetheless assault rifles are an unnecessary extension of the libido.

And guns are never responsible for crime....People are!
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yeah, I get that part. I don't question that that would be how such a law would work. What I'm trying to figure out is the logic behind such a law. In this theoretical world, various guns and features thereof are banned to protect people. But if some criminal is going after me, I don't see how my life is being protected if the tool that could save my life is illegal. 
because the tool itself is dangerous. The tool itself is costing people their lives. Having a gunman able to fire off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds gets people killed. Most people don't, or shouldn't need that many rounds for self defense. If you are firing 30 rounds at someone in "self defense" then there is probably a pretty good chance of other people getting caught in the crossfire anyway. 

how many scenarios actually come up where someone needs to be able to fire a dozen rounds at someone to protect themselves? Probably not very many. \

Maybe I don't need more than 5 bullets for hunting, but that's not life or death. If I need 6 bullets for self-defense, then I guess I die in the name of saving lives?
your question is kind of messed up. Basically, you are saying someone in the rare circumstance where they needed a large mag for self defense should die so that dozens of potential victims in mass shootings can live. The answer is yes. We should to what we can to reduce the numbers of deaths. There might be 1 or 2 cases where someone might die who otherwise would live (though i'm not convinced that is true), but there would definitely be lots of cases where people successfully survive a mass shooting because the gunman had to stop and reload after a few shots. 
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why are 10 kids killed with an AR-15 worth more than 9000 black-skinned people killed with handguns?

Don't Black Lives matter to you anymore? Why are they worth less to you?
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are 10 kids killed with an AR-15 worth more than 9000 black-skinned people killed with handguns?

Don't Black Lives matter to you anymore? Why are they worth less to you?
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about ARs and large capacity mags. You are talking about handguns. they are related, but different topics. I also believe much more regulation is needed for handguns too, but I wasn't talking about that.