California Assault Weapons Ban

Author: SirAnonymous

Posts

Total: 97
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
Here's an interesting (but obviously biased) video displaying just how useless the Assault Weapons Ban in California is. The guy in the video has two almost identical rifles. They have different grips, buttstocks, and means of attaching the magazine. One is illegal (to buy, anyway. Since this guy bought it before a certain date, it's legal for him to own). One isn't. Ironically, the legal rifle is easier to use and would be slightly more dangerous than the illegal rifle. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
You're right. clearly that ban doesn't go anywhere near far enough. 

SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're right. clearly that ban doesn't go anywhere near far enough. 
That is one of the biggest reasons pro-gun people oppose gun control.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
That is one of the biggest reasons pro-gun people oppose gun control.
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale? That's an odd reason to oppose gun control. 
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings. Secondly, handguns are responsible for about 20 or 25 times as many deaths as all rifles put together. Thirdly, the reason I was referring to is that many pro-gun people believe that the end goal of gun control advocacy is a ban on all guns.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Are you against handgun bans and why?



SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, and it's because I think that the evidence shows that guns save more lives than they kill due to their widespread use in self-defense. Also, the evidence suggests that gun control and gun bans don't save lives. Instead, they just lead to a decrease in gun deaths accompanied by an increase in deaths from other weapons such as knives. This is why London, after banning guns failed to reduce crime, started instituting knife control.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings.
No hunter has ever needed 30 round mags in a semi-auto for hunting. If you need that much firepower then you are out to kill humans. 

Secondly, handguns are responsible for about 20 or 25 times as many deaths as all rifles put together.
I would be very much in favor of gun control on handguns too. 

Thirdly, the reason I was referring to is that many pro-gun people believe that the end goal of gun control advocacy is a ban on all guns.
The point isn't to ban guns. The point, from my point of view anyway, is to ban, or heavily restrict, guns that are designed to kill humans. A handgun for example has no use other than killing people. Very few people need to own that. 

Any weapon that is capable of unloading 30 rounds in rapid succession is designed to kill humans. No one needs to own those. 
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'll get back to you tonight when I'm at a computer.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
the evidence shows that guns save more lives than they kill due to their widespread use in self-defense.
Do you have a source?
the evidence suggests that gun control and gun bans don't save lives.
Do you have a source?
Instead, they just lead to a decrease in gun deaths accompanied by an increase in deaths from other weapons such as knives. This is why London, after banning guns failed to reduce crime, started instituting knife control.
Do you have a source that compares the UK and US? 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
AR15s provide protection against the biggest mass shooter in history; a tyrannical government.

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale?
which is defined how?


HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
AR15s provide protection against the biggest mass shooter in history; a tyrannical government.
I find this argument hilarious. An AR15 will not stop a drone from bombing you. It want stop an abrams tank, or fighter jet. If the US government became tyrannical, either the military backs the government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world won't save you, or they don't back the tyrannical government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world are completely irrelevant. 

Your guns are meaningless in terms of fighting the government. However, if you hold onto that right to have all those guns countless people will die. Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people? 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you against handgun bans and why?

that would be the abolishment of the 2a

an accurate question would be are you in favor of abolishing the 2a

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale?
which is defined how?
In my opinion, any weapon that is designed to kill people should be heavily restricted if not banned. A hunting rifle is fine. But no one needs a magazine of more than 5 or 10 rounds to go hunting. No one needs to own a hand gun. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
 find this argument hilarious. 
HistoryBuff are you familiar with the civil war per chance?  it is said that brother fought brother, neighbor fought neighbor.  If you believe the government has such tight control over the military that they would do those things you should be terrified.  If you believe no group in the military would rise up against bombing their fellow citizens then you should be terrified.
But this is the same government you'd give more power to.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
A tyrant government isn't going to bomb you.  They are more likely to use slave labor.  Nazi Germany had bombs and could have easily bombed Jewish houses and massacred all Jews they found, but they enslaved them instead.  The Jews could protect themselves with AR 15s if they had them.  Instead, Nazi Germany made sure that the Jews disarmed themselves first.  As Hitler said, "to conquer a country, first disarm it's citizens".

Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people? 
Given that the US military would do much more damage then some crazy school shooter, I'd say being pro gun is pro life in the sense that is saves more lives.

As bad as the school shootings are, they are thankfully very rare and preventable by arming consenting teachers.  If I were a teacher, any school shooter better watch out for my loaded 22 caliber pistol.  My classroom would be protected.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
HistoryBuff are you familiar with the civil war per chance?  it is said that brother fought brother, neighbor fought neighbor.  If you believe the government has such tight control over the military that they would do those things you should be terrified.  If you believe no group in the military would rise up against bombing their fellow citizens then you should be terrified.
But this is the same government you'd give more power to.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that either way, your AR-15 is useless. whether the military sides with the government or against it, your gun doesn't mean squat. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
any weapon that is designed to kill people should be heavily restricted if not banned. A hunting rifle is fine. But no one needs a magazine of more than 5 or 10 rounds to go hunting. No one needs to own a hand gun. 
which guns are specifically designed "to kill people"?  how were these designs developed and studied?  
A baseball bat isn't designed to kill people, but it is used to do so.
explain the difference and give an example of design vs misuse/illegal use.

do you know much about hunting?  
Did you know states, counties etc can put limits as to how many rounds your gun can hold when you go hunting? 
Did you know in certain places you can NOT hunt with a rifle?  but instead must use a shotgun with a slug barrel?
Did you know it is illegal to hunt deer with certain calibers?


2a is not a needs test, limiting magazines is stupid at best.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that either way, your AR-15 is useless. whether the military sides with the government or against it, your gun doesn't mean squat. 
it means more than angry words and a stick.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,853
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
A tyrant government isn't going to bomb you.  They are more likely to use slave labor.  Nazi Germany had bombs and could have easily bombed Jewish houses and massacred all Jews they found, but they enslaved them instead. 
No, they rounded them all up and sent them to death camps. Bombs are expensive, death camps were much more effective. In this scenario the tyrant government seizes power and you delusionally think you will stop them with an AR-15. That would make you (in their eyes) traitors and rebels. If you were a threat to them then of course they would bomb you. They would do whatever they had to to nulify the threat. America has a massive arsenal it could use to "defend itself from traitors" if the military wanted to. 

As Hitler said, "to conquer a country, first disarm it's citizens".
Hitler 1st rose to power using an armed mob. So clearly this statement is bullshit. 

Given that the US military would do much more damage then some crazy school shooter, I'd say being pro gun is pro life in the sense that is saves more lives.
What?! america has more mass shootings and it has more murders than most of the developed world. In what sense do guns save more lives?

As bad as the school shootings are, they are thankfully very rare and preventable by arming consenting teachers
There were 417 mass shootings in 2019. That is more than 1 per day. There is nothing rare about that. Now many of these weren't at schools, but every single one of them is a tragedy and many could have been avoided with proper gun controls. 

If I were a teacher, any school shooter better watch out for my loaded 22 caliber pistol.  My classroom would be protected.
The far more likely outcome is that your gun, or another teacher's gun, will end up hurting an innocent person than stopping a bad one. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that would be the abolishment of the 2a

an accurate question would be are you in favor of abolishing the 2a
that would be the value of gun ownership verses reduction in harm

an accurate question would be are you in favor of reducing harm


guns blazing already? Man either you are really triggered or you've become so irrational that you don't understand just how easy it is to counter what you say. 

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
that would be the value of gun ownership verses reduction in harm

an accurate question would be are you in favor of reducing harm
preserving the 2a and a reduction in harm are not mutually exclusive

there are over 22000 gun laws, an ar ban etc etc but a few more laws will fix the problem?

criminals do harm, I'm in favor of reducing criminals, thus reducing harm

an accurate question would be are you in favor or reducing harm or just gun harm?

please counter away LOL


dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
People in general don't advocate only for gun harm reduction. It's just so happens that gun laws appear in a cross section of forms of harm that are actionable, are irrationally being ignored and are inflicted onto others.


disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
And tyrannical governments go to school.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
let's try a mandatory curfew, you can apply for a special permit if you happen to work an off shift so you can get to and from work.  That will keep people off the street, especially during the hours when probably 90% of the murders happen?  Most happen at night, far more often then between 8am-8pm

I have yet to hear anyone articulate how infringing on law abiding citizens rights has any appreciable effect on crime.

most people are, have been or could be negatively impacted by crime since most don't have armed security, walled homes etc

so regardless on which side you are on we all do not want to be negatively impacted by crime if at all possible, in that way we are one.
I'll assume you agree with this.
so what can we do, individually and collectively to protect ourselves from crime?
I'm not convinced on this trickle down scheme that is suppose to take guns out of criminal's hands.
does the "broken window" theory not work?  seems neighborhood revitalization was a thing for a short time, what happened to that?  the reality is if there was no crime no one would care what or how many guns anyone had.

people like governor blackface would make thousands of citizens criminals and not impact real criminals at all.  is that what you really want?  unless there is a military state they will just hide their guns or not comply, then what?  arrest thousands who weren't criminals and probably working citizens?  

this seems to apply
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

before governor blackface was in office there was no limit to how many purchases you could make in a month, this is true in many states as well, but now he wants to limit it to 1 per month,  Can you logically and factually tell me how this reduces murders?
what % of legal purchases are for more than one gun?  I'd be it's very low.

bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Would you be in favor of banning hammers/blunt objects? They kill more people than rifles https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

What about banning fists and feet? They kill above 50% more people than rifles do. Are you in favor of cutting off feet and hands to prevent those deaths?

SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings.
No hunter has ever needed 30 round mags in a semi-auto for hunting. If you need that much firepower then you are out to kill humans.
Firstly, the size of the magazine has very little to do with the type of gun. I can easily put a 30 round mag in a wooden Ruger Mini 14, which has never been classified as an assault weapon, and I can easily put a 5 round mag in an AR-15.
Secondly, hunting isn't the only use of a firearm. A 30 round mag can be very useful for sporting or self-defense against multiple assailants.
Thirdly, your subjective opinion that such guns are designed to kill humans because of the most common magazine sizes used in those guns has nothing to do with the objective fact that they are designed for civilians.
I would be very much in favor of gun control on handguns too. 

The point isn't to ban guns. The point, from my point of view anyway, is to ban, or heavily restrict, guns that are designed to kill humans.
What do you mean by "kill humans"? No, that is neither rhetorical nor a mockery. I'm dead serious. If one counts justified self-defense as "killing humans", then every gun on the face of the planet is designed for "killing humans". However, I think we can agree there is nothing wrong with self-defense. If you mean by "kill humans" that the weapons were designed specifically for the military and/or law enforcement, then it is an objective fact that most or all of the guns banned by the California assault weapons ban were not designed for "killing humans."
A handgun for example has no use other than killing people. Very few people need to own that. 

Any weapon that is capable of unloading 30 rounds in rapid succession is designed to kill humans. No one needs to own those. 
Again, self-defense and sporting are also legitimate uses of firearms. Handguns are excellently suited for self-defense. There are a lot of people - one might even say nearly everyone, though some obviously more than others - who can use that. Also, what do you mean by "need"? Strictly speaking, no one "needs" anything beyond food, water, and shelter. Speaking more generally, there are a lot of people who need handguns and 30 round mags. For instance, a single mother in a high-crime neighborhood - or, for that matter, anyone in a high-crime neighborhood - would find such weapons very useful. Finally, what do you mean by rapid succession? The semiautomatic weapons that the law bans can only fire one shot per trigger pull.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
the evidence shows that guns save more lives than they kill due to their widespread use in self-defense.
Do you have a source?
Yes. According to the CDC, there are 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.
(The link leads to the relevant chapter of the study)
the evidence suggests that gun control and gun bans don't save lives.
Do you have a source?
Yes. Here is a source describing how homicide rates went up in the UK after their 1997 gun ban until they began increasing the number of police officers.
Here is another source that found that a gun control policy failed to reduce homicide rates. It isn't very useful because it only discusses one policy, but I find it funny that HuffPo would even publish this.
Instead, they just lead to a decrease in gun deaths accompanied by an increase in deaths from other weapons such as knives. This is why London, after banning guns failed to reduce crime, started instituting knife control.
Do you have a source that compares the UK and US? 
No, but I can tell you without looking that the US murder rate is higher. However, I can also tell you that it's almost impossible to draw useful conclusions by comparing countries like that because they have radically different histories, cultures, past crime rates, laws, etc. That's why I provided the source comparing pre-ban UK to post-ban UK. It's more useful to compare countries to themselves because it eliminates all the previously mentioned variables.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
let's try a mandatory curfew, you can apply for a special permit if you happen to work an off shift so you can get to and from work.  That will keep people off the street, especially during the hours when probably 90% of the murders happen?  Most happen at night, far more often then between 8am-8pm
In society, the general rule is that you are allowed to be stupid if it doesn't involve harming innocents. Going out in night would be one of those instances. Getting shot by others is not.

I have yet to hear anyone articulate how infringing on law abiding citizens rights has any appreciable effect on crime.
I have yet to hear anyone articulate why such a right is reasonable and should be preserved.

I'm not convinced on this trickle down scheme that is suppose to take guns out of criminal's hands.
Why not?

people like governor blackface would make thousands of citizens criminals and not impact real criminals at all.  is that what you really want?  unless there is a military state they will just hide their guns or not comply, then what?  arrest thousands who weren't criminals and probably working citizens?  
This seems like irrational fear-mongering rubbish to me.

before governor blackface was in office there was no limit to how many purchases you could make in a month, this is true in many states as well, but now he wants to limit it to 1 per month,  Can you logically and factually tell me how this reduces murders?
what % of legal purchases are for more than one gun?  I'd be it's very low.
I have two hypotheses

1. The perpetrators of mass shootings typically use more than one firearm. Spacing out gun purchases is likely to reduce casualties if not spacing out purchases, or give more time for reflection if they are

2. Less circulation of guns. Less guns less crime is the gist of it

At any-rate if there is any chance of such a law reducing murders, then I would say that the law is a net benefit.
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yeah even as a left leaning socialist I believe in gun rights, particularly with assault weapons. 

In my personal opinion I believe being a socialist and being anti gun is downright awful. 

This is because due to the fact that socialism would give the government a great portion of power. 

And guns particularly assault weapons would help prevent a tyrannical government from fully taking over, or at the very least deter them from abusing their power. 

Therefore by allowing citizens to own assault weapons, under socialism the government would be far less likely to abuse their power.