ExRx.net

Actually the guns used by our armed forces are pretty weak. Accurate, but weak. Grenade launchers are for blowing things up. Overthrowing the government is not the only reason for gun ownership. I think the legality for guns depend on their functionality for self defence, hunting and defending against a totalitarian state. AR15's can be applied to all three of those reasons but a grenade launcher would only apply to the last reason.

I have a feeling you like others, (Piers Morgan) are discriminating based on cosmetics rather than the function of the gun.

I think what ever happens as a result of these incidents will be based on emotion.

I agree with this former Marine.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4981537555

That's a good point. The M16 and similar weapons, like the AR15, fire a small caliber round (5.56 mm), and are designed to wound, since a wound is often as good as a kill in a firefight. If you're trying to kill large animals, such as in that video, it's more humane to use a higher powered rifle.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

"I wasn't debating their current legality, I was asking if you think they should be legal (bazookas and weapons of great destructive power). Like I said, these types of weapons would be one of the that would give the "people" a chance should we have to overthrow our gov't through brute force. Why do we say ar 15s and ak 47s are legal, when these types of guns are clearly for warfare, and not bazookas and the like? I don't see a logical reason as to why they are illegal and ar 15s aren't." - Rucifer

By your logic muzzleloaders should also be illegal. They were originally a weapon of war, before people started using them for hunting and target shooting. ... The truth is most advances in firearms began with military weapons.

However, I don't know of any military using AR-15s or semi-auto civilian AKs.

Semi-auto rifles (including AR-15s) are used in a variety of shooting sports as well as informal recreational shooting, hunting (the AR platform can be chambered in a variety of calibers) and lawful self defense. These weapons are actually very popular. Meanwhile, their use in crime is relatively rare (maybe 1% of all guns used in crimes are semi-auto rifles). Furthermore there's very little mechanical difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto rifle. For example, the Ruger Mini-14 is rarely considered an assault weapon, however it's chambered for the same cartridge as most ARs and can be fitted with high-capacity magazines.

There's also concern that banning all or some semi-auto rifles for mostly emotional reasons would set a dangerous precident, and could lead to increasingly restrictive laws, especially if the ban(s) failed to achieve their desired effect.

Frankly, I think it's idiotic that so much of the debate on gun control revolves around mass shootings, which, while terrible, account for an extremely small percentage of all murders.

That, and the fact that there is no way that gun control would have have had any impact on previous mass shootings.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

I just read an article about a New York newspaper that published the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. ... Great illustration of some of the problems that can go along with licencing and registration.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw this on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful ... this_data/

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Looks like it's from the same source. In NY you need a permit to legally own a handgun. The information is considered a public record.

"Overthrowing the government is not the only reason for gun ownership" - Jebus

Actually this is what the founding fathers (if you are American) had in mind when they drafting the second amendment. This WAS the reason for it. While I agree it has basically no meaning in our current times, and am not arguing against owning guns for self protection.

"I have a feeling you like others, (Piers Morgan) are discriminating based on cosmetics rather than the function of the gun." - Jebus

Yes, when a gun is used to murder over 20 schoolchildren, I am purely arguing against "cosmetics".

"Actually the guns used by our armed forces are pretty weak. Accurate, but weak." - Jebus

I didn't necessarily mean maximize damage as in caliber or firepower, but the ability to shoot a lot of rounds accurately and in a lot quicker time. I am glad Jebus that you at least acknowledged the legality of grenade launchers and the like. To be honest, I am actually undecided on this issue, and all of this, and really playing devil's advocate, only if someone can convince me why the "assault rifles" should be legal and more destructive weapons not.

"By your logic muzzleloaders should also be illegal" -Matt Z

How many mass killings have muzzleloaders been involved in? The logic is valid now because technology has rapidly advanced weaponry so quickly and we are still playing catch up to learn the consequences. While yes, muzzleloaders were created for the same thing, revolutionaries had no idea how sophisticated firearms would get, and so quickly, since comparing a sword of medieval times and a muzzleloader is a fraction more effective than comparing a muzzleloader and any gun intended for warfare in this century.

"However, I don't know of any military using AR-15s or semi-auto civilian AKs." - Matt Z

They are an imitation of a *current* military issued weapon and weapons used by militas all around the world.

Semi-auto rifles (including AR-15s) are used in a variety of shooting sports as well as informal recreational shooting, hunting (the AR platform can be chambered in a variety of calibers) and lawful self defense. These weapons are actually very popular. Meanwhile, their use in crime is relatively rare (maybe 1% of all guns used in crimes are semi-auto rifles). Furthermore there's very little mechanical difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto rifle. For example, the Ruger Mini-14 is rarely considered an assault weapon, however it's chambered for the same cartridge as most ARs and can be fitted with high-capacity magazines." - Matt Z

Valid points. I don't claim to know the specifics of every rifle and how capable they are for spraying as many bullets as possible, all I know is in most of the mass killings as of late, these have been the weapons of choice.

"There's also concern that banning all or some semi-auto rifles for mostly emotional reasons would set a dangerous precident, and could lead to increasingly restrictive laws, especially if the ban(s) failed to achieve their desired effect. Frankly, I think it's idiotic that so much of the debate on gun control revolves around mass shootings, which, while terrible, account for an extremely small percentage of all murders." - Matt Z

How can you expect people NOT to react with the recent mass shootings as of late? While I agree that their arguments are emotional and they probably aren't thinking of the consequences, neither are the people on the other side of the coin wanting to arm everyone in the country (including teachers). People are going to react when politicans and children are gunned down by psychos, and the weapons that the psychos used were legally obtained. Expect to hear that if bad things happen.

"I just read an article about a New York newspaper that published the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. ... Great illustration of some of the problems that can go along with licencing and registration." - Matt Z

True. That newspaper is straight up idiotic for doing that.

You have still yet to explain why guns capable of high round capacity are legal and not bazookas and flame throwers in the like, which is the main question I am asking. Do you think they should be legal? Since more effective weapons are on the streets than the normal pistols and hunting rifles, and the claim is that the lawful abiding citizens who own them don't do anything wrong with them, why can't these same claims be made to more destructive weapons? These could certainly be used for hunting (like hoosegow said) and recreational shooting as well.

"That, and the fact that there is no way that gun control would have have had any impact on previous mass shootings." - Stuward

This actually brings me to another interesting point regarding weapons with more firepower. We agree that it is illegal to own a bazooka? And you probably agree with the argument that a ban on assault rifles would still lead the guns to end up in the hands of criminals anyways? Ok so answer me this- how come we aren't hearing about criminals using rocket launchers and grenades then? They still should end up in the hands of criminals anyways right? I think the turf war gang that was using these vs using handguns would certainly win...

I'm sure they exist. Why they're not used, I have no idea. Here was a live M72 found recently. http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/alb ... index.html

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Ok, I never said it wasn't. I was saying it wasn't the only reason. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

I think the reason criminals don't use rocket launchers is because the supply is low, expensive and having one is very inconspicuous. They do use bombs though.

As for why they are illegal, who the hell is gonna hunt with a rocket launcher? Your going to spoil the meat.

"I'm sure they exist. Why they're not used, I have no idea." - Stuward

Well we both agree they exist, even the occasional criminal who might get one (I don't know how often they have been, I just know its not a lot) I have a theory on why they aren't used though. Because they have been made illegal, they are not manufactured for a wide base such as the general public as various assault rifles are. Therefore, trying to obtain one would cost some serious $, which is a barrier even to the criminals from getting them. So why wouldn't the same logic apply to the weapons these mass shooters are using? The drugs argument is often brought up, as they are made illegal and still rampant. But they are far easier to home make than what we are talking about here. Making guns and rocket launchers is not something that could be conceivably be done by anyone other than legitimate manufacturers.

"Ok, I never said it wasn't. I was saying it wasn't the only reason." - Jebus

Agreed, just as I said I have already said I no problems owning a gun for self defense, and haven't made up my mind completely about this assault rifle stuff, but questioning why one would need an AR 15 for this, and am VERY skeptical at this point.

"Random Thomas Jefferson quote" - Jebus

Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Would you also say that he might not have been making a mistake there? I'm not trying to insult history- just pointing out that they might have made some mistakes, especially considering they didn't always know what the future had in store, and probably weren't conceiving of our current predicament. While the arming of militia's was a good idea at the time because they have just gotten over repression of a gov't (although I don't know how widely believed this is outside the US), unfortunately I don't think a revolution will ever occur in America through brute force again. Hence why they allowed amendments to the constitution...

"I think the reason criminals don't use rocket launchers is because the supply is low, expensive and having one is very inconspicuous. They do use bombs though."

I actually agree with this, as my response to Stuward suggests, though I think you meant conspicuous. Why can't this same deterrent be used for assault rifles? And most of those bombs are homemade they are using- not really much of a way to stop that, other than illegalizing (is that a word?) chemistry. They are not using rocket launchers and grenades and the like.

"As for why they are illegal, who the hell is gonna hunt with a rocket launcher? Your going to spoil the meat."

I think was meant lightheartedly, but as Hoosegow points out, it could be beneficial in some circumstances. How about a bear attacking a home in the wilderness? I don't even know how to put down a bear but I am sure most guns aren't very effective at doing this, and a grenade probably would be. Also, recreational shooting is used as a reason to legitimize the assault rifles. Why doesn't this same theory apply to what we are discussing?