Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by August

He did not legally possess the weapons

No, but he got to them so easily because his mother legally owned them.

So perhaps they should make it so that you aren't allowed to have guns if you have mental health issues, or if you live with someone who does?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

So they're pretty much useless unless you wanted to murder some kindergarten kids.

I wouldn't say that is helpful to the discussion.

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

No, but he got to them so easily because his mother legally owned them.

So perhaps they should make it so that you aren't allowed to have guns if you have mental health issues, or if you live with someone who does?

The first is already law I believe but the Patient Privacy Lobby doesn't want anyone to know who might suddenly snap so it's effectiveness is limited. As to your second idea I could agree with that at least not have guns on the premises. She should have known to keep the weapons under lock and key with a kid like that but apparently, for some reason which the cops haven't figured out yet, he managed to get his hands on them anyways.

[CaptainMattJ.]

The .223 is roughly the same to a 5.56x45 NATO, which is used in M4 carbines and M16s. I have a .223 cartridge right in front of me, the bullet would be about as long as an average pinkie. The cartridge i have in front of me was fired from a .223 M14, known as a mini-m14 because of the fact that a military issue m14 fires 7.62x51 NATO.

The .223 may be almost identical (some say it's different, but by all that much) to a 5.56 but the .223 was originally designed to take down really big game animals. The .223 offered hunters the ability to take down an animal with less bullets and more force. Hunters are actually vital to ecosystems in some places, where population control over problem species needs to be maintained. Not to mention it's potential uses in extreme law enforcement and security for high risk events such as the olympics. It is in some cases interchangeable with the 5.56mm so it could be used with some 5.56 rifles. the .223 round is considered an assault rifle round, but banning it would cause semi automatic weapons to be affected too.

So yes, even the high powered rifles have a use in civilian hands (security firms are considered civilian in some cases). And i wholesomely believe in the right to own one. And yes, these incidents occur in the few psychotic individuals who get their hands on one, not by the millions of responsible owners around the country.

A ban on high capacity clips seems the only thing that's agreeable. that and the SERIOUS firepower, such as .50 caliber machine guns and grenades/explosives.


As for some of the real problem, it's been hit right on the head earlier in this thread. This country offers almost no support for mental issues. In fact, there are stories of people asking for help with their mentally disabled child and being told "the best case scenario is if your son/daughter/spouse gets incarcerated and put in jail". Budget cuts to mental treatment are SERIOUSLY hurting those who really need the help.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Definition: A military force that is raised from the civilian population in an emergency to supplement a regular army

Shows how little you know about America. At the time of the founding of the country a "regular army" was something to be afraid of. The Second Amendment was written partly to let the citizens stand against the possibility of a Federal Army. Each State was supposed to have its own militia. A Federal Army was created during our 1861-1865 Civil War, and then quickly disbanded. It was recreated for the First World War, then allowed to shrink considerably, then revived for World War 2. With the coming of the cold war it was considered necessary to keep it going, and today we accept it without question.

During the early period of our country's history, Militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the age of 17 and 45, and every single one was expected to bring his own gun.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^^^^

So in those days, people thought that a regular army would have too much power? Seems fair enough.

But you have to remember that the constitution was written about 200 years ago. Perhaps there should be a plebescite vote on wether or not they should change it? That way, most of the country gets what it wants.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

But you have to remember that the constitution was written about 200 years ago. Perhaps there should be a plebescite vote on wether or not they should change it? That way, most of the country gets what it wants.

Wrong again. I've already explained what it takes to amend the Constitution. If a new convention were held it could come up with anything. The first time we were lucky to have people smart enough to create a form of government that actually worked for the the people. There's no guarantee it would happen again. That's why it's so hard to change it.

The Constitution itself is the instruction manual for running the government. The first ten Amendments - the 'Bill Of Rights' - is there to guarantee non-interference by the government in the daily lives of the people. That we've managed to let them do that anyway is to our shame.

But no. No popular vote can change the Constitution. Period.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^^^

So, I guess that's that, then.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

So, I guess that's that, then.

Not as far as this discussion is concerned. There is no final word or answer to this problem. I was merely speaking to changing the Constitution.

[August]

Think of it this way Cybermat. A constitution that can be easily changed is a weak constitution just begging to be usurped by a would be dictator.

[Oberon]

The only beef I have about the whole second amendment was that it was written in an era when cavalry and infantry were the biggest concern to a soldier (well, that and not catching infection or a random disease). If the US government wanted to turn its resources on its citizens, what can a Bushmaster do against a fully loaded B-52 bomber operating at high altitude?

But putting that to one side for the moment since as Lord Magerius says, we're hitting on the real meat of the problem here and it's got nothing to do with gun control or the second amendment.
Rivet mentioned the Dendermonde attack, but I can bring forward a much more recent event that was overshadowed by Newtown:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

All that guns do is increase the killing efficiency of the person holding them, that's all that they were designed to do. They are lumps of metal and oil, extensions of the person operating them.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by August

Think of it this way Cybermat. A constitution that can be easily changed is a weak constitution just begging to be usurped by a would be dictator.

Good point. Anyway, your constitution is very heavy on freedom. Perhaps a little too much, in my opinion, but too much freedom is better than no freedom. And it mightn't even be gun laws that are causing these shootings. China has had more school shootings than America, just not as bad.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Good point. Anyway, your constitution is very heavy on freedom. Perhaps a little too much, in my opinion, but too much freedom is better than no freedom. And it mightn't even be gun laws that are causing these shootings. China has had more school shootings than America, just not as bad.

Americas constitution is heavy on freedom because America is based around freedom, it was born from the idea of having freedom over their own actions rather than having to obey the whims of a nation over a thousand miles away. It's a big word in America, one of the founding principles of it, and sometimes that can confuse people who are not American, it can confuse them as to why on Earth are they so paranoid about their own government taking some sort of dictatorial control over them, when said government can't even control itself, however it has been hammered into the American code, the way of life, heck perhaps even the American DNA, that freedom is a right given not by God, but by man, and that freedom can be taken away again just as easily if you are not vigilant, and that's spot on, it can be, although usually it's done in a manner through which you don't notice it happening until it's too late, which is probably why Americans are rather jumpy when it comes to governments doing anything, just in case it's the first step on that slippery slope.
As a Brit I can understand both the American viewpoint and the Australian one to a point, after all, you're both children of the Empire, even if you have grown up and left home () and I think that in the great cultural melting pot that is America, freedom is a good thing, and of course it's going to be abused, that's the price of freedom and free-will, not everyone is going to behave, but you can't judge a whole nation on the actions of a few nutjobs, just as you can't judge the whole of Germany on one or two peoples opinions...isn't that right, August?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Oberon

As a Brit I can understand both the American viewpoint and the Australian one to a point, after all, you're both children of the Empire, even if you have grown up and left home ()

As a toddler, I wanted, for some reason, Britain to annex Australia

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

...but you can't judge a whole nation on the actions of a few nutjobs, just as you can't judge the whole of Germany on one or two peoples opinions...isn't that right, August?

Yeah I suppose so, especially since I have more relatives that are German citizens than Americans and none of them are anything like some of the Germans I meet here.

Of course their constant attacks on my country do tend to tempt me to respond in kind but I guess I should keep in mind that for every nipplespanner or Skybird there is a Penguin or a Lurchi and a few others to counteract them.