HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Focusing on "assault...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

Focusing on "assault weapons" is not sensible

If you fear for yourself or your children and that fear would be in any way alleviated by restoration of the assault weapons ban then your notions of risk-assessment are flawed.

You, me, your child, your neighbor... any and all of us run a far-too-good chance of being shot.

By a hand gun.

Focusing on assault weapons makes sense only if your fear is being shot in a way that ends up on TV.

But in terms of actually being, you know, shot the sensible focus is the same as it was in 1950, 1970, 1990 and 2010.

Recall that the Brady bill was a handgun bill. Because Brady and Reagan were shot with a handgun.

The whole, "Why does anyone need an assault weapon?" thing is silly. As opposed to what? A handgun?

A handgun is truly designed only to kill people in civilian life. It isn't a hunter's weapon. It isn't a soldier's weapon.

It is an anti-personal weapon designed for concealment and action at close quarters... designed for everyday life, not for a battlefield.

It is a gun designed to be available 24/7. For road rage, for shooting your ex-wife, for altercations outside the club, for your children to take to school. It fits in your glove compartment or under your car seat. It is ideal for armed robbery and drive-by shootings.

Why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Sawing off most of the barrel of a shotgun doesn't increase the pellets' velocity. It doesn't make it penetrate body armor. It does not confer any novel ballistic scariness or change the nature of the load fired. It reduces the accuracy of the weapon greatly.

So why is it illegal to cut down a shot gun? Because it makes it like a handgun... concealable. It takes a very, very powerful weapon into something you can carry inside a coat in an everyday urban environment, and thus a favorite of criminals and a great danger to the populace.

If we want to ban assault weapons then have it, but please don't think it makes us much safer. Reducing the number of inexpensive handguns is what would do the most to make ordinary everyday people safer.

The objective of gun control should be practical, not political. NRA members are a bunch of Republicans but they are rather unlikely to shoot you or your kids. Mass shootings are attention getting, but account for a small fraction of gun deaths.

Is this about harassing Republicans or about not getting shot? Because if you get shot it will probably be by an unexceptional handgun with no special scary features.

If we have the power to ban everything then do so. Cool.

If, however, one is limited to an incremental approach then I would suggest looking at what actually kills people every damn day, rather than looking at whatever is on television.

13 replies, 909 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:45 PM

1. Agree. Handguns are a greater danger. At least ban semi-auto rifles and hanguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:48 PM

2. I think counties that ban guns start with handguns, for good reasons

My impression is that handguns are quite rare in the UK, for instance, while rifles are not uncommon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

3. "It is an anti-personal weapon designed for concealment and action at close quarters"

AKA Self defense.

Good luck convincing America that taking away their tools for self defense is a wise idea.

Unless of course you want everyone carrying around shotguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

4. Your approach would also take away the most effective means of self defense from those who need it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

5. Of course. But "sensible" isn't the order of the day in this debate.

Nor is "rational" or "informed," for the moat part. Both sides are guilty of hysterical appeal-to-emotion arguments, excessive vilification of the other side, and generally behaving like infantile asshats. Both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

6. Assault weapons are made to kill mass numbers of people. More handguns are

in circulation, than assault weapons, and will obviously have higher numbers of related deaths as a result.

I disagree that we need to focus on handguns given they are viewed as protecting the homes of many who own them. As such, they serve a purpose, beyond mass murder.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:53 PM

7. This week were focusing on Massacres.

Try to keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:56 PM

8. You mean like self defense?

 

A handgun is also the only kind of gun that can be safely locked in a safe under the nightstand and quickly retrieved in the case of an intruder. Let's face it, anyone that breaks into an occupied house is evil and willing to do harm to the people inside it.

NOTE - I don't have a safe by the dresser and don't have a gun in the house for self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:08 PM

9. Anecdotal, but for what it's worth.

When I lived in Oregon I knew a few hunters.

Every one carried a handgun with them when they went hunting. Not so much for protection against hunters but to finish off a wounded animal.

Roomie had gun safe with a variety of handguns. Then again, he was an armored truck driver and one of his big fears was that he'd be accosted while at work or on his way to work. Provided his own weapons and ammo. Cast his own bullets, loaded his own ammo. Wore body armor, even if the temperature was 95 outside and higher in the truck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:22 PM

10. It easy to say that we can ban "black rifles", handguns or all guns. ...

But at this time in our nation it is impossible. Any such law would never pass the House which is Republican controlled and most like would also fail to pass in the Senate as many elected Democrats come from Red states.

The votes are simply not there. Even if such a law did pass the Supreme Court with its current make up would overthrow it.

I'm an gun owner but I do not believe that everybody should own one. The main problem that I see with pushing for gun bans and confiscations at this time is that the effort is causing firearm sales to sky rocket. People who had no reason to buy a firearm are deciding that it might be impossible in the future.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:35 PM

11. Ban Assault Rifles and Semi-auto pistals with high repeat fire capability. If you can't win with 10

If you can't win a gunfight with ten bullets you need to leave the genepool, LOSER.

Why do we need to put up with bad shot clowns who can't win a fight with ten chances? Hit the road Jack.

Banning guns with bigger capacity only serves the madmen, not the responsible guys who practice on the range and know how to hit the target. The Tucson Killer had 31 bullets and killed six. Not only is he a bad man with a gun, but he was not a responsible gun owner that anybody in the NRA need feel sorry for his six life sentences plus 140 years after that. He's out of the genepool now, but why wait until guys like him kill six people? Take away his phallic symbol of manly power. If the handgun made all men equal, then big magazines make the bad men too big -- it's time to make them more equal again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:41 PM

12. Weapons with high-capacity magazines are not for self-defense;

they're for mowing down zombies (in fiction).. and for mowing down people (in real life).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:37 PM

13. assault weapons = fast slaughter

the mass slaughter of innocents in schools, malls etc. are the manifestation of some loser's fantasy to express supreme power over others. I say ban them and take that solution out of the hands of such people.
Ban handguns too for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread