jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (27 posts)

Should there be a ban on buying assault weapon for individual or personal use?

  1. alexandriaruthk profile image69
    alexandriaruthkposted 5 years ago

    Should there be a ban on buying assault weapon for individual or personal use?

    In view of the recent Aurora massacre that killed a dozen people and wounded nearly 60, the suspect used an assault weapon and other deadly ones. He bought all the weapons in the past month or so.

    Assault weapons are used by people who are assigned for general security of the people.

    Should an individual be allowed to buy an assault weapon knowing that it can be used to kill in successive and fastest ways?

  2. Jack Burton profile image84
    Jack Burtonposted 5 years ago

    It would help if alex had any real clue as to what an assault weapon really was. If you go to my hubs you'll see an article that explains in five minutes more than most people learn about them in a lifetime.

    Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)

    1. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'd edit that definition to read, "Assault Rifle (n.): a photogenically evil-looking, black rifle demagogging politicians can use as a cheap prop to help fool the voters into thinking they actually are trying to 'do something.'"

    2. alexandriaruthk profile image69
      alexandriaruthkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      My father own one of those and as such living during those times when I was a kid, that put our lives in danger. We had problems about peace in the area! It doesn't make sense when weapon should protect lives and yet it is also used to kill as many.

  3. junkseller profile image86
    junksellerposted 5 years ago

    I think both sides can be unreasonable. An outright ban isn't necessarily effective and won't be fair to responsible people who want them for legitimate use.

    However, it seems worthwhile, to examine the pathways through which these weapons end up in the hands of criminals and try to restrict those pathways in a way which doesn't restrict legitimate pathways. What exactly is so terrible about at least having that discussion?

    The other side, however, seems to immediately say no to anything other than completely unrestricted access. It is an unreasonable position. And than some of them will try and pretend that tactical rifles, like the AR-15, are just like any other hunting rifle. If people can't be honest about the relative capabilities of different weapon systems than it makes a reasonable debate difficult.

    1. Jack Burton profile image84
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      js KNOWS that the Oct. '09 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting/fishing, prominently featured an AR rifle on it's front cover, and declared it one of the top ten deer hunting rifles of the year. Ask yourself... why does he lie?

    2. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      A high-end platform performing mundane tasks well, does not mean a mundane platform performs well at high-end tasks. That's a logical fallacy. I have no reason to be deceptive. Anyone with eyes can see the differences for themselves.

    3. Jack Burton profile image84
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      junk obviously believes that he knows better about what makes a top hunting gun over the experts at Outdoor Life. So be it.  Leading a horse to the truth isn't going to make him believe it. And he wants a "reasonable" debate?

    4. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You don't think the people at Outdoor life had political aim for that? I have already said they should be legal but the AR 15 is not a hunting rifle, it's the civilian version of the US M16 combat rifle, it's made to kill people, we both know that.

    5. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Who gives a crap about top hunting guns. What we are talking about are TOP TACTICAL GUNS of which the AR-15 is one. It is a great hunting gun BECAUSE it is a great weapon period. I think your Outdoor Life mag is the closest you've ever been to a gun.

    6. Jack Burton profile image84
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Josak, the Outdoor Life mag is nothing but a political rag. :0 And junk is the one who's been claiming all along that the AR platform is not good for hunting. Good to see that he's come around and now believes that it is.

    7. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, you really are dense. Please point out the spot where I said it wasn't good for hunting. I have said it wasn't designed for it. I have said it is a good tactical rifle. That's all. Stop making shit up.

    8. Blond Logic profile image96
      Blond Logicposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      As the question of hunting is raised, I would like to ask , where is the sport in killing an animal with an assault rifle. If a hunter is skilled in tracking and killing, an ordinary rifle or a crossbow would suffice.

    9. Jack Burton profile image84
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      junko,, you stated people "pretend" it is a hunting rifle. Blond, check out my hub on Evil Black Rifles and you'll find your answer in great detail. Go ahead, it only takes five minutes to read.

    10. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Pretend it is "just like any other hunting rifle" is what I said. Not, "pretend it is a hunting rifle". Those are distinctly different statements.

    11. Jack Burton profile image84
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Fires same caliber as hunting rifle - check. First 1 bullet at a time as hunting rifle -- check. Used as hunting rifle - check. Excellent "pretense" going on there. Smells like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck... well, we all know the rest.

    12. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      All weapons could be evaluated for their tactical capacities (e.g. weight, ROF, ammo cap, accuracy, maneuverability, accessories, etc.) Of legal guns, the AR-15 would rate near the top. Do you disagree? I really don't care what we call it.

    13. Jack Burton profile image84
      Jack Burtonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sure it's the top... which is rather pointless.  When the lever action was invented for the Civil War it was the top also. The war rifle Mauser bolt action was the top 50 years later. Both became premier, traditional hunting rifles.Same with the AR

    14. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Most people seem to agree with placing restrictions on highly capable weapons such as machine guns. I don't find it pointless or unreasonable to at least consider shifting that line to include other very capable weapons.

    15. Martinblade1 profile image60
      Martinblade1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      We can argue about this as much as we like, but it doesn't change what happened.  As I wrote in my hub about the criminal mind, taking away the gun only takes away one tool while leaving the criminal free to find another tool.

      It will never work.

    16. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So, who cares what tools they use? By that logic, let's sell rocket launchers, Sarin gas, and Dynamite to anyone who has a hankering for such stuff. It is difficult, so let's no try is an unacceptable argument to me.

  4. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 5 years ago

    Yes, simply because assault weapons are tools they have good uses and bad uses, they are great defense items and can also be used for ill it happens that assault weapons are the mot and largely the only effective weapon in war or civil insurrection of any sort and we should remember that the second amendment was written with the purpose of giving civilians a way to resist an oppressive government and or an invading army, do I think either of those things are close? No, but we live in an unstable world and it always pays to be prepared just in case, it happened in my home country and no one thought it would there is no reason it could not happen in the US.

    1. alexandriaruthk profile image69
      alexandriaruthkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There are some weapons which can kill as many as it can with rapid firing??

  5. duffsmom profile image60
    duffsmomposted 5 years ago

    While assault weapons make people cringe, he could have killed them horrifically using several revolvers, instead of the assault rifle.  The gun, or rifle is not the problem.  It is the mentally unstable person who kills with no conscience but believe me someone bent on killing will find a weapon whether gun, rifle or as in the case of terrorist, a bomb to commit their horrific act.

    1. alexandriaruthk profile image69
      alexandriaruthkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How about motive, when one purchase assault weapon - the main purpose is to use for assault. Thanks for commenting.

    2. Martinblade1 profile image60
      Martinblade1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      By your own definition, Alex, all weapons should be classified as assault weapons, even knifes and clubs. All weapons are created to do harm, that is their purpose. There is a difference between using a weapon to kill game and using it to kill a man.

    3. duffsmom profile image60
      duffsmomposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      We can't police motive.  At that point we are getting into the "thought police" mode.

 
working