the benefits of banning assault rifles outweigh the costs

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 90
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
it's very rare for someone to need an assault rifle for self defense. we're talking maybe hundred per year of examples, i'd think. but how often are those guns used in mass shootings and for murder? much more likely. 

assault rifles are not just like other guns in scary lookin form. they are more efficient at shooting multiple people quicker. that's because of their spread and their ease of triggering. 

yes knives kill more people than assault rifles, but when you consider how many murders are done by the rifles versus the knives, the rifles have a higher rate of murder.

gun are not just tools. people are more likely to kill if they have a gun. this is common sense and backed by science. (gun murders are wildly out of control in the usa versus other countries while non-gun murders are not- this isn't just a bad person problem. areas with more guns have more murder)\

people dont kill people, bullets do. ('guns dont kill people, people do')

there's no evidence the framers were even trying to protect self defense and hunting, let alone that they were trying to protect mass killing machines

just thought i'd address some of the more common nonsensical arguments upfront.  

#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It takes a well-educated media watcher to actually believe a rifle is an existential threat.
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Banning semi automatic guns and implementing background checks does not reduce the homicide rate: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11yflOMimI67xOmbzx3E_f6x0MlweEgjkwUpmJ8Ww8Ug/edit

gun murders are wildly out of control in the usa versus other countries while non-gun murders are not- this isn't just a bad person problem. areas with more guns have more murder)
Your comparing extremely different areas.  If you want a more accurate gun control experiment, compare the same areas BEFORE and AFTER they implemented some type of gun control so you reduce the likelihood of a lurking variable causing the correlation.  That’s what I did in the above sheet and based on these results, gun control laws don’t reduce the homicide rate.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
They tried controlling the deadliest gun in America, the handgun, with Stop and frisk, and the Liberals said that kind of gun control is unacceptable.

Democrats have no stomach for actual gun control.
#5
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
So just to be clear, assault rifles (vague term) should be banned because of their effectiveness and ease of use for the shooter?
#6
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
We should ban hands. After all, they do kill more than rifles including “assault rifles.”
Topic's author
#7
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
only with the gun debate, is it common for such idiotic arguments from gun nuts 
Topic's author
#8
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
correct, plus the rare need for them to be used in self defense 
#9
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats have no stomach for actual gun control.
Because targeting demographics at the same rate that they commit homicide is racist or something
#10
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
You speak about guns like someone who has never seen one in real life 
#11
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
But if a gun is effective and easy to use for a murderer, it is also effective and easy to use for a self-defender. And since "assault rifles" account for an infinitesimal amount of homicides, I'm not sure what the issue is.
#12
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But if a gun is effective and easy to use for a murderer, it is also effective and easy to use for a self-defender. And since "assault rifles" account for an infinitesimal amount of homicides, I'm not sure what the issue is.
They are scawy and make him feel unsafe 

Topic's author
#13
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
it's not a big deal that we ban assault rifles, considering how often they're used... but it should be done. my assumption is that it's much more rare for them to be needed for self defense than for murder. i can be persuaded to change my mind with evidence, if there is any.  i know only a few hundred perpetrators are even shot per year, and that every time i see someone use those rifles for self defense, the situation didn't require one. but i also know we have at least one mass shooting per day in the usa on average, with those rifles as a primary choice, and that those rifles are used for murder a lot. 
#14
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
my assumption is that it's much more rare for them to be needed for self defense than for murder.
Those two words are where your problem started. How many homicides are committed each year with assault rifles?
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's not a big deal that we ban assault rifles,

Then it's also not a big deal if we don't ban them.

Black kids are still going to be gunned down en mass at schools with handguns while racist Democrats give fuck-all.

So it doesn't matter. (as usual and as predicted)

Why are you defending the party that encourages handgun deaths and the mass killings of Black skinned people?
Topic's author
#16
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector

that reconciles with my stat that we have a mass shooting per day, and that assault rifles are a weopon of choice when that happens. 

my assumption that they're used in self defense is rare, is based on how often perpetrators are even shot at all by any weopon, let alone an assault rifle. plus i dont see good examples of where they're needed, very much. plus it just doesn't seem like there would be that many instances where they're needed. i could be wrong. 
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
that reconciles with my stat that we have a mass shooting per day, and that assault rifles are a weopon of choice when that happens. 

Not in the Black community. Why are you purposely being racist?
The world doesn't revolve around white people stats.
#18
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
The stats tell us there were 364 homicides using a rifle. Bear in mind, a rifle does not necessarily mean an assault rifle - which I will clarify again is a vague term but we'll use it for the sake of argument. However, handguns accounted for about 6,300 homicides. Why arent you calling for a ban of handguns?
Topic's author
#19
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
why are you race baiting? you're just as bad as those liberal race baiters, just from another angle 
Topic's author
#20
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the number varies a lot per rifle use. the article used the number 500 so i went with it. we know that we have a mass shooting per day, and that assault rifles are a primary use for that purpose. we know that only a couple hundred pepetrators are even killed per year, so the use of rifles to do so must be miniscule. we have enough data to say there's disproportionate murder with them. 

i dont want to ban hand guns, because people need to be able to defend themselves and a gun is often the only way they effectively can. (i'm an odd ball and think the second amendment doesn't protect the right to self defense with a gun, but that the ninth amendment does, and that guns are necessary for public safety, even though they cause more harm than good)
#21
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
Well honestly, if you don't think the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with self-defense, we're both probably wasting our time here. I don't think we're ever going to find common ground.
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
why are you race baiting? you're just as bad as those liberal race baiters, just from another angle 
Because every gun control law that is specifically designed to kill as many Blacks as possible is absolutely racist.

i dont want to ban hand guns, because people need to be able to defend themselves and a gun is often the only way they effectively can.
A handgun isn't the best gun for home defense and you should know that. It is the best gun for killing Blacks though and that is backed by cold hard facts.

The actual reason why you don't want to ban handguns is because less Blacks would die, and no racist Democrat wants that.
Topic's author
#23
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the irony being, you can't show one shred of evidence from the founding fathers that they intended the second amendment to protect self defense with a gun. you can show a possible interpretation of the amendment in that regard, but if it was true, they would have said something about it, like they did for the purpose of every other amendment. 
#24
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
The problem with banning assault rifles is that you can ban them and confiscate them all you want, but people will find ways to get them through various sources such as the black market. It would cause harm to small businesses to remove their assault rifles

I do think there should be restrictions on who can buy AR's, I believe you should need a second license to buy an AR-15 or any military grade weapon
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6

The above arguments are all largely irrelevant.

Other than as something to argue about.


Guns are here, and were designed by humans, for humans, for a human  purpose, and guns are efficient when activated.

No one actually needs to own an assault rifle

Though no one actually needs to own a car.

Cars can be pretty dangerous when activated.


And the sensory appreciation of weapons, borders on the erotic.
#26
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
Here's a whole list of quotes that would counter that point:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/
Topic's author
#27
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
most of those quotes regard having a gun might be a good idea sometimes, or that militia rights are a good thing. ('bear arms' refers to militias) or they're taken out of context. i'm also sure that many of those quotes are spurious, given how often gun nuts use false information, but i wont go point by point on them. it's telling that you can't find any quote that uses the second amendment to protect self defense right with a gun.... simple idea, but you can't do it. 
Topic's author
#28
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
some spurious and out of context quotes
#29
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
Since you are a skeptic, here is a quote taken directly from the source. Out of Federalist No. 28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."


According to this argument, are the citizens supposed to rush to the government officials to get weapons so they can defend themselves against the usurping government officials? Or are the citizens expected to have their own firearms for the purpose of self-defense?
Topic's author
#30
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i notice no mention of the second amendment there. there was an english common law right to a gun for self defense, after all. with all the hoopla that gun nuts use to defend the second amendment, they cant find some simple quotes from fathers stating that the second admendment protects the right to a gun for self defense or hunting, or anything other than the militia.