[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, what do I do if a criminal attacks my home with a Stinger Missile? Shouldn't I be allowed a rack of ABMs to defend myself? What if I want to install land mines on my front lawn or motion sensors rigged to nail bombs?

Seriously, who ever heard of a home invasion including an assault rifle? That's insane fearmongering, man. If you really think the argument for having assault rifles is that folks might break into your home and attack you with one, well then you're using the oldest argument for gun ownership in history.

Solution to stemming crime: it's impossible to get rid of it altogether, but I dare say that more responsible government spending, less focus on globalisation (in the form of foreign factories) and a concentration on domestic markets would all be good for our economy. Jobs in manufacturing would serve the role they once did of keeping the undereducated employed. And folks with decent jobs and a comfortable life don't as frequently turn to crime.

I am certain that economic crime would be not be significantly affected by mass ownership of assault rifles. The fear argument is a weak argument.

[J m HofMarN]

How do you defend your home if a criminal with an assault rifle attacks your home and you don't have an assault rifle? Assuming you only have pistols, rifles and kitchen utensils to defend yourself.

Rather reminds me of that Itchy and Scratchy cartoon where they keep pulling out larger guns. Why is it impossible for a responsible adult to take down someone invading their home with a single bullet? Why would you need to fire off sixty high velocity rounds a second? Wouldnt those high velocity shells be likely to pierce your walls, furniture and family? Why would a criminal bring a bulky assault rifle on a break in? Try smuggling that in through a window or something. Also, there's the question of concealment. A pistol is easier to hide from children and invaders than a large assault weapon. You cant really just put that under your pillow.

So if someone right now popped by with an ak47 wanting to assassinate me and eat my pinneal gland (because, of course, he's black and on drugs) and he for whatever reason had an assault rifle, I'd just wait behind a door and stab him or something. I could do just as well with a pistol if I owned one, but I dont think I'd really need an assault rifle unless he'd brought several friends with him.

[J m HofMarN]

Also, this home break in scenario is nonsense since the vast majority of these actions occur logically when the home is unoccupied. In this case I believe that mr assault rifle would be one of the first things the theif snatched up, which is part of the reason that guns are so readily available to criminals.

[Deucaon]

I do believe in gun control, anything that creates a blast radius (shotguns, explosives, et cetera) should not be allowed and arms manufactures should make a civilian version of guns which do not allow full auto. Remember that this only applies to the US where crime is rife and war zones.

Unless your pistol is a flintlock, a bullet is a bullet, so I'd imagine it would be fairly balanced unless there's a firefight going on. But if someone breaks into your home with an assault rifle, I say just let him (or her) take your damned TV and report the robbery to the police after said criminal is gone. I can't imagine any actual reason a criminal would "attack" someone's home outside of some drug dealing or gang hit, and in that case, just don't get involved with that stuff. If you are involved, you probably have your own assault rifle anyway.

You need to clarify what you mean by "attack," I think. And it would also be great if you actually paid attention to what everyone's been saying instead of asking the same questions over and over after people have already answered you.

But the fact is, that is you didn't have a gun, why is he going to shoot you, and why would you want to shoot him? If you can afford a gun, you can certainly afford a burglar alarm and household insurance. If an alarm is going, and the cops are on their way, do you really think a criminal is going to hang around? And even if he does take something, you're insured, who gives a shit if he nicked your TV?

Deucaon, what do I do if a criminal attacks my home with a Stinger Missile? Shouldn't I be allowed a rack of ABMs to defend myself? What if I want to install land mines on my front lawn or motion sensors rigged to nail bombs?

Seriously, who ever heard of a home invasion including an assault rifle? That's insane fearmongering, man. If you really think the argument for having assault rifles is that folks might break into your home and attack you with one, well then you're using the oldest argument for gun ownership in history.

Solution to stemming crime: it's impossible to get rid of it altogether, but I dare say that more responsible government spending, less focus on globalisation (in the form of foreign factories) and a concentration on domestic markets would all be good for our economy. Jobs in manufacturing would serve the role they once did of keeping the undereducated employed. And folks with decent jobs and a comfortable life don't as frequently turn to crime.

I am certain that economic crime would be not be significantly affected by mass ownership of assault rifles. The fear argument is a weak argument.

Fun facts...

In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.

In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms.

In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year.

In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."

I guess I will just have to repeat myself: if a criminal thinks of robbing a joint or decides to rape someone then they might think twice about attacking a place or person if they armed with an assault rifle. Prevention and deterrence is key.

There is no harm in allowing law abiding citizens to own assault rifles. If a criminal doesn't attack a place or person with an assault rifle then they can do it with a submachine gun, does that make a difference?

(because, of course, he's black and on drugs)

How stereotypical for a middleclass white guy to say.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 19 May 2008 - 07:14 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Ah I figured htat'd work. You had me on sim-ignore list for a while and then hopped on my post soon as you figured I'd opened myself up to attack. However, that was a dig at Zewb's post earlier in the thread which blamed gun violence on drug addicted African Americans. You get a gold star for effort though.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 19 May 2008 - 08:14 PM

[civilian_number_two]

According to your stats, Deucaon, Assault Rifles were involved in 1% of homicides, both before and after the ban. Also according to your stats, the majority of violent crime is committed with hands, knives, and bludgeoning weapons. Under 9% of all homicides were committed with guns. Also your stats debunk the "armour piercing" scare, as they allege that in fact no police officer has ever been killed with an armour-piercing bullet.

Therefore, it is not necessary to own an assault rifle for personal defence. A handgun or a rifle will do just fine.

[Deucaon]

Ah I figured htat'd work. You had me on sim-ignore list for a while and then hopped on my post soon as you figured I'd opened myself up to attack. However, that was a dig at Zewb's post earlier in the thread which blamed gun violence on drug addicted African Americans. You get a gold star for effort though.

So you use what someone insinuated as an attack against me? Bravo, maestro, bravo. You'll forgive me for not replying to your posts, in most of them you come off as an enormous dickhead.

According to your stats, Deucaon, Assault Rifles were involved in 1% of homicides, both before and after the ban. Also according to your stats, the majority of violent crime is committed with hands, knives, and bludgeoning weapons. Under 9% of all homicides were committed with guns. Also your stats debunk the "armour piercing" scare, as they allege that in fact no police officer has ever been killed with an armour-piercing bullet.

Two thirds of murders are a minority to you?

Therefore, it is not necessary to own an assault rifle for personal defence. A handgun or a rifle will do just fine.

Deterrence isn't necessary? You can defend yourself and your property from a criminal wielding a shotgun, a submachine gun or an assault rifle with a pistol or rifle? Unless the criminal is completely incompetent for question 2, the answer to both is no.

Lets turn this debate around. Why is it a bad thing for law abiding citizens to have assault rifles but not bad for them to have pistols?

[J m HofMarN]

So you use what someone insinuated as an attack against me? Bravo, maestro, bravo. You'll forgive me for not replying to your posts, in most of them you come off as an enormous dickhead.

No, I believe I already stared that I used it to make my argument appear weak so you'd take notice of what was being said, despite the fact that you are incapable of refuting any part of my argument except that one bit of intentional fallacy. And anyhow, I would easily imagine that the vast majority of American white suburban gun owners have those guns because of exactly the scenario Zewb put forth.

Deterrence isn't necessary? You can defend yourself and your property from a criminal wielding a shotgun, a submachine gun or an assault rifle with a pistol or rifle? Unless the criminal is completely incompetent for question 2, the answer to both is no.

Yes. Yes you can. Youre basing the conditions for victory solely on rate of fire or power. However the other people here are considering the fact that you'll be defending familiar territory, and that no matter how cool and big your gun is, if the other guy shoots first and is more accurate, you're still effed. So yes, you can take down a man wielding a shotgun, machine gun, bazooka, patriot missile, whatever as long as you shoot him before he fires accurately on you. If you need a full clip of ammo to nail someone who is in your own home standing no more than twenty feet away from you, it's safer if you don't have a gun.

Why is it a bad thing for law abiding citizens to have assault rifles but not bad for them to have pistols?

Because an assault rifle or any fully/semi automatic weapon can do increasing amounts of damage to multiple targets which puts them beyond what most people outside of Iraq need to defend themselves. I know what you're going to say, that you advocate a civilian model of an assault rigle that isnt fully automatic. My problem with that then is, why? It wouldnt be an assault rifle anymore.

[Deucaon]

No, I believe I already stared that I used it to make my argument appear weak so you'd take notice of what was being said, despite the fact that you are incapable of refuting any part of my argument except that one bit of intentional fallacy. And anyhow, I would easily imagine that the vast majority of American white suburban gun owners have those guns because of exactly the scenario Zewb put forth.

You want to dance? Then lets dance. But if you start acting like a dickhead again I will start dismissing your posts again.

Yes. Yes you can. Youre basing the conditions for victory solely on rate of fire or power. However the other people here are considering the fact that you'll be defending familiar territory, and that no matter how cool and big your gun is, if the other guy shoots first and is more accurate, you're still effed. So yes, you can take down a man wielding a shotgun, machine gun, bazooka, patriot missile, whatever as long as you shoot him before he fires accurately on you. If you need a full clip of ammo to nail someone who is in your own home standing no more than twenty feet away from you, it's safer if you don't have a gun.

Do you know anything about CQB?

Because an assault rifle or any fully/semi automatic weapon can do increasing amounts of damage to multiple targets which puts them beyond what most people outside of Iraq need to defend themselves. I know what you're going to say, that you advocate a civilian model of an assault rigle that isnt fully automatic. My problem with that then is, why? It wouldnt be an assault rifle anymore.

It would still have a 3 round burst and more bullets per round then a semi automatic rifle.

[civilian_number_two]

Two thirds of murders are a minority to you?

The stats you cited said that 1% of murders were committed with assault rfles. That is not 2/3. That is 1/100. I challenge you to show what percentage of those murders were gangland drive-bys and how many were these home invasions that are necessary for the "self defence" argument.

Deterrence isn't necessary? You can defend yourself and your property from a criminal wielding a shotgun, a submachine gun or an assault rifle with a pistol or rifle? Unless the criminal is completely incompetent for question 2, the answer to both is no.

Again, how many home invasions involve assault rifles? I think as instruments of self-defence, their best use is to fire back at the car that is pulling the drive-by.

For me, if a criminal burst into my house firing an assault rifle, I'd change the channel because I saw that one (LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD), and it was totally ass.

Lets turn this debate around. Why is it a bad thing for law abiding citizens to have assault rifles but not bad for them to have pistols?

Pistols miss at a rate of one shot at a time, and the collateral damage is lessened. Since most bangers can barely hold a gun, let alone fire one straight, I'd rather they missed at a rate of one bullet per squeeze, rather than a steady and scattering stream of outrageously inaccurate shots.

I couldn't care much less about the so-called law abiding citizens who want MKs. But the idea that making the weapons illegal would be completely impotent and impossible is certainly compelling. However can you explain why bangers aren't tossing around heavy explosives? They are also illegal for civilian use, and apparently just about impossible to acquire. This isn't prohibition, where you take something that law abiding civilians really want, and you make it illegal. That's a troublesome venture, where you make criminals out of law abiding civilians. This is taking something that law abiding civilians don't want, and you make it really hard to get. So the argument "only crimnials will have them" doesn't suggest anything that wouldn't already be true. Outlaw assault weapons, and only outlaws will have them. Make them legal, and by and large only outlaws will have them as well. Only in the former scenario, fewer outlaws will have them because they'll be harder to get.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 20 May 2008 - 11:57 PM

[Slade]

I didn't see Live Free or Die Hard, but c'mon, Civ. The trailer alone had four explosions! How could that possibly be ass?

Deucaon: It sounds like JM knows more than you do about CQB, especially until you actually cite what you just read on Wikipedia about it and how that strengthens whatever argument you're trying to make, instead of just asking him what he knows about it and ignoring his points.

[J m HofMarN]

I'm petrified.

Anywho, yeah, just asking if I know about cqb isnt a rebuttle. I browsed an article on it, don't see which part you're trying to apply since it's typically a military or police term for when a squad raids an enclosed space. Not for when one guy bumbles into a kitchen to grab my toaster.

It would still have a 3 round burst and more bullets per round then a semi automatic rifle.

More bullets per round?

[Deucaon]

The stats you cited said that 1% of murders were committed with assault rfles. That is not 2/3. That is 1/100. I challenge you to show what percentage of those murders were gangland drive-bys and how many were these home invasions that are necessary for the "self defence" argument.

In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year.

Gangsters aren't known to rape and rob from each other. Even if 90% of the armed murders committed were done by gangsters onto gangsters that would still leave 1,000 people who were killed for reasons other then gangland violence.

Again, how many home invasions involve assault rifles? I think as instruments of self-defence, their best use is to fire back at the car that is pulling the drive-by.

For me, if a criminal burst into my house firing an assault rifle, I'd change the channel because I saw that one (LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD), and it was totally ass.

You can defend yourself and your property from a criminal wielding a shotgun, a submachine gun or an assault rifle with a pistol or rifle?

It can be a submachine gun or a shotgun and it wouldn't make much difference, especially in close quarters.

Pistols miss at a rate of one shot at a time, and the collateral damage is lessened. Since most bangers can barely hold a gun, let alone fire one straight, I'd rather they missed at a rate of one bullet per squeeze, rather than a steady and scattering stream of outrageously inaccurate shots.

I couldn't care much less about the so-called law abiding citizens who want MKs. But the idea that making the weapons illegal would be completely impotent and impossible is certainly compelling. However can you explain why bangers aren't tossing around heavy explosives? They are also illegal for civilian use, and apparently just about impossible to acquire. This isn't prohibition, where you take something that law abiding civilians really want, and you make it illegal. That's a troublesome venture, where you make criminals out of law abiding civilians. This is taking something that law abiding civilians don't want, and you make it really hard to get. So the argument "only crimnials will have them" doesn't suggest anything that wouldn't already be true. Outlaw assault weapons, and only outlaws will have them. Make them legal, and by and large only outlaws will have them as well. Only in the former scenario, fewer outlaws will have them because they'll be harder to get.

Owners of liquor, jewellery and convenient stores might feel that fighting off a robber wielding a submachine gun or shotgun with a pistol or rifle would be ineffective. If you had a store and you advertised on your store that your employees were armed with assault rifles then a criminal might think twice about attacking your property and your workers. If you outlaw assault rifles then criminals will have them and law abiding citizens are left to fight off criminals wielding submachine guns, assault rifles and shotguns with pistols and rifles. Explosives have been used extensively in the Columbine Massacre, Oklahoma City Bombing and WTC Bombing despite their ban.

I'm petrified.

Anywho, yeah, just asking if I know about cqb isnt a rebuttle. I browsed an article on it, don't see which part you're trying to apply since it's typically a military or police term for when a squad raids an enclosed space. Not for when one guy bumbles into a kitchen to grab my toaster.

The basic idea I was trying to convey is that fighting against someone with a pistol or rifle when they have an assault gun, submachine gun or shotgun while in an urban (enclosed) environment is (lack of a better word) stupid. I should have probably just stated that instead of asking a rhetorical question about advanced urban tactics.

More bullets per round?

More rounds per clip. D'oh!

[J m HofMarN]

If you had a store and you advertised on your store that your employees were armed with assault rifles then a criminal might think twice about attacking your property and your workers.

That sounds like the kind of store I'd like to go to. That way when my girlfriend sends me to buy tampons I can still be doing it in the manliest store in the world. Also, since no one in their right mind would go in a store with a sign that says "employees carry automatic weapons", the line at the cash register would be short.

Explosives have been used extensively in the Columbine Massacre, Oklahoma City Bombing and WTC Bombing despite their ban.

No. No, explosives have been used. period. in the oklahoma city and wtc bombings. Explosives were present but not detonated at the columbine thing. Any time explosives are used its an extensive use, so that adjective is right out. And those are just a few examples. Explosives dont appear in daily violence, whereas they would if they were made legal for "self defense"

The basic idea I was trying to convey is that fighting against someone with a pistol or rifle when they have an assault gun, submachine gun or shotgun while in an urban (enclosed) environment is (lack of a better word) stupid.

Why, in an enclosed environment at close rangem, would a pistol be any less effective than an assault rifle against a single opponent? Considering the ample cover and obstructions to vision and such, its basically a contest of who can aim and fire faster. And when you know your home better than the bad guy, that lets you hide and get the element of surprise, which translates as the first shot.

Also, as Civ and myself have both stated, this scenario relies on the villain having an assault rifle at all. Whereas Civ provides a vague example of how one could use automatic weapons for self defense, I have a better one.

Lets say you're just chilling in your home with some sweaty black guy tied to a chair, when suddenly a trench coat wielding stick man and some greasy haired chick pop by in their matching shades. You SHOULD be able to gun them down with your self defense assault rifles, but instead they just take away your guns and use them on you while jumping merrily around your ornamental pillars. See. Criminals, or The One, will just take away your gun and use it for their own nefarious purposes. It's been proven in the only scenario I can think of where assault rifles were used for home defense.

Anyhow as for making an assault rifle not an assault rifle, I think that's kind of a cop out. Allowing people to have a great white in their homes as long as it's under six feet in length and is kept on a leash is still allowing people to have a great white shark in their homes.

[Deucaon]

That sounds like the kind of store I'd like to go to. That way when my girlfriend sends me to buy tampons I can still be doing it in the manliest store in the world. Also, since no one in their right mind would go in a store with a sign that says "employees carry automatic weapons", the line at the cash register would be short.

Why would anyone in their right mind be put off with people defending their place of business with assault rifles? I mean if they did that then it would be a safer place to shop.

No. No, explosives have been used. period. in the oklahoma city and wtc bombings. Explosives were present but not detonated at the columbine thing. Any time explosives are used its an extensive use, so that adjective is right out. And those are just a few examples.

I thought to add anti abortionist bombings and KKK terror bombings but I thought those 3 examples would suffice.

Explosives dont appear in daily violence, whereas they would if they were made legal for "self defense"

People don't use explosives so often because weapons are more accurate and easier to use. You cant do a drive by shooting or rob a persons property with explosives.

Why, in an enclosed environment at close rangem, would a pistol be any less effective than an assault rifle against a single opponent? Considering the ample cover and obstructions to vision and such, its basically a contest of who can aim and fire faster. And when you know your home better than the bad guy, that lets you hide and get the element of surprise, which translates as the first shot.

So have a maximum of 15 rounds per clip is the same as having a maximum of 30 rounds per clip? Do you think (if we are debating a pistol verses an assault rifle in defence because an ordinary rifle would be pretty ineffective in terms of manoeuvrability and reload time) that a pistol round can penetrate walls/debris just as effectively as a rifle round?

Also, as Civ and myself have both stated, this scenario relies on the villain having an assault rifle at all. Whereas Civ provides a vague example of how one could use automatic weapons for self defense, I have a better one.

The scenario requires the criminal to have an assault rifle, a submachine gun or a shotgun because regardless which they have they would still have an edge in close range over a person who carries a pistol or rifle.

Lets say you're just chilling in your home with some sweaty black guy tied to a chair, when suddenly a trench coat wielding stick man and some greasy haired chick pop by in their matching shades. You SHOULD be able to gun them down with your self defense assault rifles, but instead they just take away your guns and use them on you while jumping merrily around your ornamental pillars. See. Criminals, or The One, will just take away your gun and use it for their own nefarious purposes. It's been proven in the only scenario I can think of where assault rifles were used for home defense.

WAT?

Anyhow as for making an assault rifle not an assault rifle, I think that's kind of a cop out. Allowing people to have a great white in their homes as long as it's under six feet in length and is kept on a leash is still allowing people to have a great white shark in their homes.

I didn't realise that an assault rifle required a full auto feature for it to be classified as an assault rifle.