DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

The reasoning behind not letting you have an assault rifle, and making it reasonably difficult to own anything more deadly than a shotgun is because of the close proximity that we live to each other now. Assault rifle ammunition will easily pierce the wall of your home, and the wall of the home next door, and possibly the body of your neighbor if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not specifically talking about you papadawg because I'm sure you practice safe gun handling techniques. But most people, they think it's funny to point a gun at someone.

And really, a shotgun or a hunting rifle is more than enough to keep your home secure isn't it?

I was visiting the USS New York n Manhattan earlier this week as it was it's last day in port and I very much wanted to see this ship. Well they were letting people on and it was a great time. The sailors and marines were wonderful with everyone to the point where they were even letting visitors hold their weapons. So as I'm taking a picture of this marine, he hands his M-16 A-4 assault rifle to a bearded scruffy looking moron, who one hands it with his finger on the trigger and immediately levels the weapon at your truly…. Suffice to say I ducked away so fast shouting "Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to kill!!!" While the marine grabs the weapons muzzle and pushes it swiftly down towards the deck before wrenching it back out of said fools hands….. Some people… they just can't stop themselve from pointing a weapon at another individual…..

Yea I think as long as you register the weapon and stuff, it should be okay. The problem is those weapons that aren't registered so that they can't be traced back.

LordTiberivs’ comment demonstrates perfectly why people who know nothing about guns (like, say, 90% of the gun control proponents in the world) should have absolutely no say on this issue.

“Assault weapons” are semi-automatic facsimile’s of military “assault rifles”. The look similar cosmetically, and fire the same caliber of ammunition, but are effectively neutered from their military cousin’s by eliminating the capability to fire in burst or fully automatic mode.

The are functionally identical to the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been in use in the US for about 100 years.

The difference is in the ammunition. “Assault Rifle” ammunition was designed for the military specifically to be small and light so that larger quantities of ammunition can be carried by the individual soldier. The tradeoff that had to be made to achieve small, light ammunition, is in power.

The US military rifle ammunition (.223 Remington or 5.56x45mm) is generally considered only effective for small game hunting (like prairie dogs or coyotes), it is not considered effective and is, in fact, illegal in most states for use in hunting larger game because it is not powerful enough to consistently and humanely kill the animals.

The Russian counterpart, 7.62x39mm, is actually powerful enough to be used for hunting (and is used for such with increasing regularity), but is toward the lower end of the power spectrum, falling very near the power levels of the venerable .30-30 round, which has been around since about 1895.

The vast majority of modern hunting ammunition is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than the ammunition used in your typical “assault weapon”. To suppose that Grandpa’s old .30-06 hunting rifle is somehow “safer” to have in a densely populated housing area than a much less powerful AR-15 is flatly silly.

Ignorance is hardly a solid foundation upon which to build public policy.

Hey thanks Sailorcurt, I guess all those years I spent in the Navy with weapons training were totally useless! Why don't you try phrasing your debate without attacking someone you know absolutely nothing about, hey that's an idea!

Also from the psychological standpoint, having a non-automatic weapon forces the weilder to consider each shot rather than having the ability to just spray a volley straight out their door without having to spend a second considering the next trigger pull.

But you could always trade one form of ignorance for another I guess…..

Agreed with you on the point of the right to bear arms, but there needs to be a functional limit to what we can own. I am a citizen with a clear record, do I need a .50 caliber machine gun in my front closet? Should I honestly be able to own an M-249 Saw? If a burglar is approaching my house and attempting to either break in, or kickdown the door, doesn't the sound of a shotgun cocking scare him off just as easily as the bolt sliding back on an AK-47?

So, are you saying that I’m wrong? Or just that I was mean in the way I phrased my comment pointing out that you were wrong?

’cause if I’m the one who’s wrong, I’d like to know about it. I don’t consider having my ignorance pointed out as an attack, I consider it an attempt to educate me and I appreciate it.

So…educate me.

While you’re at it, please educate me about the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Hughes amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, because to my understanding, fully automatic weapons have been been tightly regulated by them for decades…proving your implication that one can just walk in to a gun store and buy an M243 or fully automatic AK-47 to be a fallacy.

The debate about “assault weapons” isn’t about machine guns. It’s about SEMI-AUTO firearms that look similar to their fully automatic counterparts. Which I mentioned in my first comment as well.

My point, is not about assault vs semi-auto, which you obviously have way more knowledge than me regarding. My point is about the close proximity in which people live, wherein a high powered bullet (which apparently includes some of the larger hunting rifles, in honesty I was thinking of a .22 rifle when I used the hunting rifle in my argument) could easily harm a neighbor as easily as an intruder.

My second point, is that it is just as easy to secure your home with a shotgun, or (low power) rifle as it is a high power military grade weapon, and yes I used an extreme example of say the Saw, but I think the theory applies also to any weapon that allows you to pay out several rounds without having to think about it in between, i.e. M-16 3 round burst etc etc.

And also yeah, if you lead out with a snide comment about someone on a debate site, it cheapens your overall point and makes me far less likely to even want to try and digest your information. You're not hurting anyone's feelings sailor but you're certainly making your side of the argument more unlikely to be swallowed.

To be perfectly honest, my point in commenting is not to convince you. Most people who feel strongly enough about a topic to comment on a thread like this already have their minds made up.

My point is to counter inaccurate information with the facts so that people who haven’t made up their minds about the issue can hopefully base any decisions they make on the truth, rather than misinformation.

I believe I was actually being charitable because, in light of your presenting flatly inaccurate information, and even after you claim to be well trained in firearms, I didn’t assume that you were being intentionally misleading or dishonest, as many on the anti-gun side are, I only assumed that you were poorly educated about firearms.

I am curious as to what rate you were in the Navy that enabled you to receive your firearms training, because in my 21 year career, even during a year in the Security Department of the USS Enterprise, we only got the most basic training on the use of firearms: The “can you handle it safely, can you load it and can you make it go bang?” kind of training. Hardly enough to make me an expert. Any expertise I have is not as a result of my Naval service.

But back to the subject: What are you advocating here, specifically? That all center fire rifles be banned from civilian ownership because, in your expert opinion, they are too dangerous to use for self/home defense in an urban environment?

Any shooter is responsible for their bullet as soon as it leaves the firearm. Although it is true that center fire rifles tend to propel bullets at higher velocities than handguns and, as a result, certain types of bullets can travel farther and penetrate obstructions easier, most pistol loadings are more than adequate to travel long distances and penetrate several layers of typical building materials.

With that in mind, rifles are easier to accurately put rounds on target with than pistols. The chances of a clean miss are much higher with a pistol than with a rifle. So, it’s a wash as far as I’m concerned. A miss with a rifle is likely to travel farther and penetrate more, but a miss with a pistol is much more likely to occur…and can still travel far enough and penetrate deeply enough to kill innocent bystanders.

Even were that not true, home defense is not the only reason to own firearms. I’m a member of the US Navy Marksmanship team (reserve component now that I’m retired from the Navy), My match-grade AR-15 sitting unloaded in my gun safe is not in danger of harming anyone.

Nor is my M4 style AR-15, nor my SKS, nor my M1 Garand, nor any of the other rifles that I shoot in matches or for fun at the range.

CENSORSHIP IS NOT AN OPTION!

I was at Norwich University for my undergraduate degree before and during my time in the Navy. NU is an old military school in VT, during training there before getting commisioned all corps cadets were trained sharpshooters in the M-14 and M-16. My experience with the Saw and the 50cal ship mounted machine gun are exactly as you said your training was, load it, clean it, don't get anyone hurt with it.

I'm happy to retract my statments regarding strength and usage of hunting/assault rifles actually after reading most of your input. You obviously are very well learned on the subject. And in truth when I started debating the point with you I though maybe you were a crazy gun nut when you started citing the firearms act of 34 and whatnot. I definitely came in with a different opinion than I have right now. BUT I think mainly I was already on the fence about the idea, having so many friends who feel exactly similar to you, and who own quite a collection also.

So while I guess I'd be more comfortable living next to someone with an AR-15 rather than pappy's old .30-06 I still think there needs to be some regulation involved.

sailor cut is allowed ten paragraphs and my four are not allowed because it is too long?

To me that is censorship.

You have heard this sort of thing from me before, and you will hear it every time it happens.

There should be no rules against owning any kind of weapon. Thats why we have police. They deal with violence.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

I'm totally pro Second Amendment. We have the right to own guns not to hunt, but to rise up against the government if they go out of control. And in my opinion, we should do that.