The Assault Weapon Myth

True that. If you aren't stupid and don't act like your old self, the mods will never know.

I wouldn't consider a magazine that holds 10 rounds to be "high-capacity", I would consider it mid-capacity. I could see banning magazine that hold more than 20 rounds, but banning magazines that hold 10 rounds or 7 rounds can interfere with a person's ability to protect himself, especially against multiple aggressors.

Also there should be a clear definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon", namely I would say that an "assault weapon" must have a few characteristics in order to merit the term: 1) a certain magazine capacity 2) a certain rate of fire 3) a certain accuracy 4) it has to be light enough that a person can carry it easily and quickly, if it's a heavy weapon that can't be carried for an extended period of time and instead has to placed on a position, then it is a weapon designed for holding a position, not storming one and hence isn't an "assault weapon".

Do 9mm have higher calibers than the AR-15? It seems to me that you are hinting at that.

Okay. I didn't know about that, but from the way your post was worded I figured that 9mm actually have a higher caliber than the "high caliber" AR-15s that those people are so opposed to.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about m8. You should read up on Switzerland's guns laws before saying such crap. Comparing Switzerland to the US is such an intellectually shallow argument that ignores millions of different variables.

For one if you are Swiss it's not legal to store your gun so it's "ready to be used at any time". Ammo and the gun are ALWAYS stored separately in locked cabinets. Also getting a gun permit to carry outside is damn near impossible unless you work in some kind of security job. Soldiers might be open carrying but those are also unloaded. Transporting guns is a bigger hassle since again, you can't have ammo and the actual gun together. Carrying a gun or even talking about carrying a gun out in public in Switzerland will get you funny looks.

Doesn't matter, the assault weapons ban still did nothing. Let's suppose for a minute that around 300 people are killed each year by an "assault weapon". Banning them still accomplishes nothing if the people who otherwise would have committed murder with an "assault weapon" can just go out and legally buy a functionally equivalent gun. A few guns get banned, people just go and buy a different gun.

I didn't say loaded.

The difference is that although the actual bullet in an AR-15 is smaller than a 9mm in caliber, it travels at a considerably higher velocity, translating to considerably more energy from their bullet hitting their target.

The muzzle velocity ceiling for 9mm rounds is approx. 16-1700 ft per second. A .223 round, those fired from AR-15s, travel as high as 4000 ft. per second.

High Caliber, in regards to the AR-15 round, is a misrepresentation. High powered (velocity) is what, I believe, that statement intends to convey.

Mericn's and their guns. *sigh*

And Serraph's position is, "we should ban more guns." Like most anti-gun people's arguments.

So, im still confused as hell about Airshocker's argument that this is evidence that assault rifles should be unbanned, when most anti-gun people want to ban guns even further. Most pro-gun people want to allow more guns.

How surprising.

Then that's not ready to be used at any time now is it? I forgot to mention fully automatic weapons are completely illegal in Switzerland.

edit: sorry if I seem like a jerk don't take it personally. I just really dislike the whole Switzerland-US analogy when it's so misleading.

So guns should be banned altogether, whether they be handguns or assault rifles. In any given population of a decent state with an adequately functioning law enforcement system, a very small percentage of the population would need to carry guns for legitimate self defense reasons. These should be granted permits to own and carry guns, but even these permits should be highly regulated and specific with regards to the privileges of these gun owners provisioned in guns ownership laws.

Its funny that there is a decades old, intense "debate" about the issue in the U.S that gets people all worked up rather periodically it seems.

Ban lethal ammo. Gun owners get to keep guns. lethal ammo becomes harder to obtain. Won't solve everything but I believe it is likely to put a big dent in gun murders that aren't premeditated.

Actually, this is about "assault weapons", not assault rifles.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ban expire, with subsequent attempts to reinstate it all failing? If that's the case, then it's not about "unbanning" anything, since they're already unbanned. The question is whether or not to ban them again, something which would be entirely pointless regardless of how "anti-gun" you are.

My position is that we should look for ways to lower the rate of death by guns in America. I only care that the solution is effective on a measurable level. According to Airshocker handguns are used the majority of the time so that would suggest making handguns less available would be quite effective. I actually contest Geezer's point of view that suddenly far more people will be carrying large guns around in the absence of smaller guns mostly because there is a stigma about walking around a neighborhood with a giant gun strapped to your back. Not to mention it's far less convenient.

That being said I'm also okay with the ban on lethal ammo that SoftwareGeek suggested above or universal background checks would also be a solution that could be implemented.

Uh...what? I never said anything like that.

EDIT: Ah, wait, I get it. I thought you were saying that you were for lowering gun deaths by banning assault weapons, when you were REALLY saying that you were for banning handguns. Therefore, when I said "doesn't matter, people will just buy a different gun", you thought I was saying that banning HANDGUNS would result in people going out and buying rifles or something instead.

Simple misunderstanding on my part, and I agree with you. I've been careful to say that the assault weapons ban was pointless because it didn't also ban FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT guns. And yes, I agree that things like rifles and shotguns are not FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to handguns, so a ban on handguns isn't gonna see most people just going out and buying rifles and shotguns instead. If the rifle you want gets banned under the assault weapons legislation, you might just go out and buy a different rifle. But if the pistol that you want gets banned, then there's a good chance that you won't go buy a rifle instead, since that doesn't have what you need in a gun. For example, handguns are usually smaller than rifles and shotguns, can be concealed more easily, and are more convenient to carry around. As a result, a lot of gun deaths are not premeditated, they just result from someone carrying a handgun "just in case" and then finding an opportunity to use it. Well, carrying around a large rifle is more inconvenient than carrying around a much smaller pistol, and that inconvenience makes it less likely for many people to switch their handguns out for rifles. A lot of them will just say, "**** it, carrying a gun is too much work."

So yeah, I actually agree with you (aside from you WANTING handguns to be banned).