Assault weapons

[Syne]

Are you in favor of an assault weapons ban? Why?
Are you in favor of banning any other types of firearm? Why?

[C C]

States which ban them apparently vary in their definitions of what constitutes an "assault weapon". Due to that lack of consensus, I'm left with what the "assault" adjective itself implies rather than the mechanical and structural features which might otherwise qualify or disqualify an instrument according to those differing interpretations. There is also controversy over whether the term originated with the firearms industry or a political agenda (i.e., what was the stimulus or grounds for making this cognitive distinction and introducing this category).

IF there are firearms being sold to the average citizen (not restricted to military and law enforcement) that were exclusively manufactured for combative situations and harmful aggression against humans (not hunting, domestic self-defense, target shooting)... Then good reasons need to be provided for why such is warranted / allowed. If it is nothing more than a hobby ("I just love shooting a gosh-dern weapon invented for specifically slaying bipedal enemies and holding them at bay"), then that could be accommodated by a licensed and regulated establishment providing them temporarily for approved members on their controlled practice yards. Kept in their very restricted lockers the rest of the time.

So for that reason (making them available to weapon enthusiasts under limited, inspected, strictly governed conditions) I don't see total denial to a non-military and non-constabulary public as necessary. If an individual wants to own them and deal in them like paintings or works of art, that should require such private owners to meet and maintain similar standards that the aforementioned establishment would have to. Should that include the instrument being functionally disabled in some way (if kept in the home) or being kept stored and functionally intact in a regulated storage facility (and yet another service of the aforementioned establishment), then so be it.

[Syne]

Yes, the term "assault weapon" is a political term, invented in 1989 to encompass cosmetic features similar to assault rifles, which differ in being fully automatic and specifically designed for war. Since being fully automatic is the only functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle, the term "assault weapon" is a completely superficial distinction.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 added, what at the time was, an exorbitant tax on machine gun sales/transfers. And in 1986 Congress added further restrictions. No machine gun manufactured after 1986 can be possessed by private owners. This means the supply on the market is limited and that the prices are too high for most enthusiasts...and typically considered significant investments. But even if you can afford them, you must pass a thorough background check, register them in a national registry, request permission to take them out of state, and always have the current address where the weapon is stored on file with the registry.

So when we are talking about supposed "assault weapons", we are not talking about weapons designed for war or capable of fully automatic rates of fire. We are talking about firearms largely used to hunt wild hogs and for recreational shooting. These firearms have never been considered for service by any military, because they are nowhere near as capable.

[Carol]

In the past, we demobilized after war, and if we did that there were would not a military weapons industry needing customers. However, we have not demobilized since Eisenhower and the Korean war, but instead established a Military Industrial Complex that continues to mass produce weapons of war, and look for customers. Maybe this causes a problem?

[Syne]

Military weapons are not sold to private citizens.

[Carol]

Military weapons are not sold to private citizens.

Please explain   I really know almost nothing about weapons.  However I think it would be poor sportmanships to go hunting with an automatic rifle and I think they have been used by citizens who commit mass murders.

Also, I read a book about how Jews in Palistine were armed by Jews in Armerica who had access to WWII weapons and smuggled them into Isreal.  This was against the law, but a book I read explained how this was done, arming the Jews while Palestinians had no access to arms, because Britain had forbidden citizens to be armed.  

And it isn't like our weapon manufactures sell weapons only within the US border.  We granted arms to the mid east countries during the Reagan administration, and also armed and trained Ben Laden's people.  And surely the weapons industry works with the Schools of Americas that arms and trains the good guys who keep South America secure from the bad guys.   

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but the manufacturers of military weapons are not switching back to domestic products when the war is over, and I think this what makes assault weapons an issue?

[Syne]

Military weapons are not sold to private citizens.

Please explain   I really know almost nothing about weapons.  However I think it would be poor sportmanships to go hunting with an automatic rifle and I think they have been used by citizens who commit mass murders.

No, at least in the US, fully automatic weapons have been banned from production for civilian use since 1986. Older ones still on the market are very expensive, and require registration, background check, a special tax, and even local law enforcement permission to own. These are not used for hunting, and have not been used in any mass shooting since the ban.

Semi-automatic firearms include handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns, with handguns far outnumbering the murders committed by any other firearm.

Also, I read a book about how Jews in Palistine were armed by Jews in Armerica who had access to WWII weapons and smuggled them into Isreal.  This was against the law, but a book I read explained how this was done, arming the Jews while Palestinians had no access to arms, because Britain had forbidden citizens to be armed.  

I don't know the details of that story, but we do know that had Jews been armed, the holocaust would likely not have happened. And considering the intention of all their Muslim neighbors, being armed against the Palestinians (who have always been armed by other Arab countries) definitely stopped another attempted genocide.

And it isn't like our weapon manufactures sell weapons only within the US border.  We granted arms to the mid east countries during the Reagan administration, and also armed and trained Ben Laden's people.  And surely the weapons industry works with the Schools of Americas that arms and trains the good guys who keep South America secure from the bad guys.   

What Congress, the President, and Pentagon do with actual military weapons has no bearing on domestic civilian ownership. Like I said, fully automatic assault rifles that the military uses are not the same as the semi-automatic "assault weapons" sold to civilians. Politicians specifically made the terms similar so the uninformed public would confuse the two. Very few of the civilian firearm manufacturers also have government contracts for military weapons.

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but the manufacturers of military weapons are not switching back to domestic products when the war is over, and I think this what makes assault weapons an issue?

Are you clear about the distinction between military weapons and things like handguns and hunting rifles? I don't know the current manufacturing for military use, but I know that this has little to do with civilian production and demand.

[stryder]

Military weapons are not sold to private citizens.

Please explain   I really know almost nothing about weapons.  However I think it would be poor sportmanships to go hunting with an automatic rifle and I think they have been used by citizens who commit mass murders.

No, at least in the US, fully automatic weapons have been banned from production for civilian use since 1986. Older ones still on the market are very expensive, and require registration, background check, a special tax, and even local law enforcement permission to own. These are not used for hunting, and have not been used in any mass shooting since the ban.

Semi-automatic firearms include handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns, with handguns far outnumbering the murders committed by any other firearm.

Also, I read a book about how Jews in Palistine were armed by Jews in Armerica who had access to WWII weapons and smuggled them into Isreal.  This was against the law, but a book I read explained how this was done, arming the Jews while Palestinians had no access to arms, because Britain had forbidden citizens to be armed.  

I don't know the details of that story, but we do know that had Jews been armed, the holocaust would likely not have happened. And considering the intention of all their Muslim neighbors, being armed against the Palestinians (who have always been armed by other Arab countries) definitely stopped another attempted genocide.

And it isn't like our weapon manufactures sell weapons only within the US border.  We granted arms to the mid east countries during the Reagan administration, and also armed and trained Ben Laden's people.  And surely the weapons industry works with the Schools of Americas that arms and trains the good guys who keep South America secure from the bad guys.   

What Congress, the President, and Pentagon do with actual military weapons has no bearing on domestic civilian ownership. Like I said, fully automatic assault rifles that the military uses are not the same as the semi-automatic "assault weapons" sold to civilians. Politicians specifically made the terms similar so the uninformed public would confuse the two. Very few of the civilian firearm manufacturers also have government contracts for military weapons.

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but the manufacturers of military weapons are not switching back to domestic products when the war is over, and I think this what makes assault weapons an issue?

Are you clear about the distinction between military weapons and things like handguns and hunting rifles? I don't know the current manufacturing for military use, but I know that this has little to do with civilian production and demand.

If people want to murder others and don't have access to guns.  They'll instead use knives, bows, cars, aircraft, brickbats, barefists etc.   Laws only attempt to adjust availability of the ease of killing, however it will never truly be effective at stopping it altogether.

As for Holocaust related statements, to my knowledge guns wouldn't of made much of a difference.  When the initial changes in regards to relationships occurred in Austria prior WWII the "minority" of Jews were singled out.  If they had weapons, they just would of ended up exterminated quicker, if anything those attacking them at the time would of wanted the justifiction.  If anything Hitler's attempt at using them in munitions plants just changed their career prospects from goldsmiths to weapons experts.  Israel outputs a lot of "Self-defensive" weaponry for that reason (along with assault weapons for dealing with Palestinians)

The main problem is understanding the reason for weaponry, obviously there is the unfortunate need in conflict (like war) there is then the argument for hobbiests like those that hunt (and kill) and those that just shoot targets at a range, further more is then the concern for a persons protection however the can of worms point here is the availability of weapons for protection also increases the availability and ease of use for them to be misused.

I've used guns and to be honest I'm pretty careful with them.  I don't find them masochistically invigorating like some, I'd intend to be cautious about where they are used and how they are handled to reduce chances of mistakes.  If I was angered (which as a prior outburst you know I can occasionally be) I would never use one for whatever reason, if I had a grudge with someone and it resorted to a physical confrontation I'd not pull a gun.  I'm not going to be the one with blood on my hands, if that makes me a victim then so be it, but I wouldn't be the perpetrator. (To my knowledge to be scared not to have a weapon available just escalates violence further since everyone will assume that everyone else is packing.)

It's actually suggested in some cases of defence or conflict, that people can end up shot with their own weapon which asks the question as to whether they would end up wounded or shot if they didn't bring it with them?

[Syne]

If people want to murder others and don't have access to guns.  They'll instead use knives, bows, cars, aircraft, brickbats, barefists etc.   Laws only attempt to adjust availability of the ease of killing, however it will never truly be effective at stopping it altogether.

As for Holocaust related statements, to my knowledge guns wouldn't of made much of a difference.  When the initial changes in regards to relationships occurred in Austria prior WWII the "minority" of Jews were singled out.  If they had weapons, they just would of ended up exterminated quicker, if anything those attacking them at the time would of wanted the justifiction.  If anything Hitler's attempt at using them in munitions plants just changed their career prospects from goldsmiths to weapons experts.  Israel outputs a lot of "Self-defensive" weaponry for that reason (along with assault weapons for dealing with Palestinians)

The main problem is understanding the reason for weaponry, obviously there is the unfortunate need in conflict (like war) there is then the argument for hobbiests like those that hunt (and kill) and those that just shoot targets at a range, further more is then the concern for a persons protection however the can of worms point here is the availability of weapons for protection also increases the availability and ease of use for them to be misused.

I've used guns and to be honest I'm pretty careful with them.  I don't find them masochistically invigorating like some, I'd intend to be cautious about where they are used and how they are handled to reduce chances of mistakes.  If I was angered (which as a prior outburst you know I can occasionally be) I would never use one for whatever reason, if I had a grudge with someone and it resorted to a physical confrontation I'd not pull a gun.  I'm not going to be the one with blood on my hands, if that makes me a victim then so be it, but I wouldn't be the perpetrator. (To my knowledge to be scared not to have a weapon available just escalates violence further since everyone will assume that everyone else is packing.)

It's actually suggested in some cases of defence or conflict, that people can end up shot with their own weapon which asks the question as to whether they would end up wounded or shot if they didn't bring it with them?

Yeah, murder rates in most countries that have instituted strict gun control/bans have not significantly decreased. Only the means have changed. Number of legally owned guns has never been positively correlated to crime. I agree, I don't see guns as being terribly exciting to shoot. They are tools which, like every tool, require the user to learn safety precautions and become competent. Like everything, some people enjoy mastering the skill, like competitive/target shooters, some use the tool for what it was intended, like hunting or self-defense, and some enjoy the mechanical aesthetics or ingenuity. And usually some mixture of these.

Firearms for self-defense are like fire extinguishers. You know that action must often be taken before a response can arrive.

"Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)." - https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

Most self-defense firearms classes, typically necessary for a carry license, teach the legal repercussions for an unjustified shooting and ways to deescalate a confrontation. So most people with the requisite license training will be more aware of their heightened responsibility to keep a level head while armed.