What do you think about banning just assault weapons that are not used for anything but killing others?

Question

Assault weapons were taken off the market for awhile and brought back in 1994. Also what about restrictions on selling guns to non US citizens? Why not have laws that are not State laws, but federal laws for every state in banning assault weapons to prevent the ease of being able to purchase these kind of weapons as the kind that was used in the VirginiaTech shooting?

I consider an assault weapon that allows you to put in clips with many rounds. Anything with more than 10 rounds. He had one weapon that allowed 10 rounds and the other gun he bought allowed 15 rounds. If he had not had something like that, it would have slowed him down in the amount of rounds and the amount of killings. Maybe it would have slowed him down enough that it would have given somebody time to react and overtake him.

I certainly do not deny I do not have a real good knowledge of guns. I do not truly understand why people need guns that shooot many rounds in a short period. For what? What would you use them for other than to kill somebody? I'm hearing a lot about self protection, the thing is we don't live in the wild west anymore, we don't allow vigilantism, and if you shoot somebody in self defense, you better have excellent proof their was threat to your person or actual assault upon you. How often do you think you're going to need a semi automatic weapon. The more guns people have that display mental instability is the biggest concern our society should be worried about.

Answer 1

Depends what you're calling assault weapons. What are actually assault weapons are already banned unless you have a Federal permit to buy them.

What you are calling assault weapons are probably semi-automatic rifles that look "bad". Their functionality is no different from many hunting rifles. The ban you're talking about was based purely on appearance.

The firearms used at VT were common semi-automatic handguns, a 9mm and a .22. They have no relation to assault weapons.

Answer 2

First, there are restrictions on selling guns to non US citizens...I don't believe it was legal for the VT shooter to own a gun.

Second, assault weapons meaning full auto are illegal...I think you can own one with some kind of certification or something, but not sure on that.

Third, the weapons used in the VT shooting were not assault weapons. They were common handguns that anyone older than 21 can own following a background check. The weapons were a 9mm and a 22 pistol...both guns that are very common for sport shooting.

I'm sorry I can not agree with you about your gun control arguments. It has now come out that this individual was very, very disturbed and that many people at the university knew this, and he was even labeled as a threat to himself and others. He was in and released from two mental hospitals. An English teacher from VT even asked that he be removed from her class or she would quit because she was so scared of him...the fact is all the warning signs were there and were failed to be recognized.

I have also heard now that he was somehow legal purchase a gun. In Pa there is a 7 day waiting period so a background check can be completed, if there is any criminal or mental history that sends up a red flag they will refuse to sell you the gun. It seems like he was able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with two guns no questions asked. That is what needs to be looked at, not banning guns that are being used properly and safely by the vast, vast majority of gun owners for target and competition shooting, law enforcement and self defense.

This is also the stupidest law I have ever heard
"Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records."
I don't know if my state does this or if others do but that is just stupid.

The weapons that were used ARE NOT assault weapons, by your definition my deer rifle and shotgun for turkey, hell even my paintball and bb gun would be considered "assault weapons" which they are not.

Answer 3

1) Banning them won't stop them from being on the market.

2) Selling only to US citizens causes problems as well, especially with the exporting of weapons. It's a great idea, but this is America. You are more likely to be killed by a true-blooded American then you are an immigrant.

3) Banning weapons won't stop tragedies like the VT shootings. ANYTHING can be purchased on the black market. At least this way it can be tracked legally.

Answer 4

You have no real knowledge of guns. A clip is not the same as a magazine (which you are referring to). A clip is used to speed load roads into either a fixed magazine (like this mauser rifle http://youtube.com/watch?v=-TwL-1xc1z8 ) or to speed load a detachable magazine (like in the AK-47 http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RgH6tHgyvY&mode=related&search= ).

The weapons used at V-Tech were two pistols. If the magazines were only ten rounds, the killer would have just had to reload every ten rounds instead of fifteen. Watch how fast this guy reloads (http://youtube.com/watch?v=j7Bucp1SVtQ ) and this one (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JrRczKLjGnM ), and even this guy with a revolver (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lJ5Pts9dUdA ) and one more pistol change (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FApxHQIkkXg ). These are not too difficult to attain with just a lot of hard hours and hours of practice (believe me, I do it a lot with my pistols and rifles, I'm not that good but I'm getting there).

Guns are our way of defending this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Foreign would be if the Chinese invaded, while domestic would be if the Federal Government decided to flex its muscles the wrong way.

Banning weapons will not stop murder. Murder is already illegal with stiff penalties (such as death and lengthy incarcerations) but it still happens. We should focus on letting people defending themselves against such attacks, not disarming them.

The victims at V-Tech could have been saved had people been allowed to carry their guns with them. The school had made it a rule not to allow students to exercise their rights (and a lot of them had Concealed Carry Weapon permits). Did that prevent Cho from shooting up the place?

NO! He still did it, probably with the knowledge that he would be very unopposed.

Please read up on this from people who don't make up stuff about guns (I provided some links) and know a lot about guns. You'll be surprised.

I would go so far as to say you should try them out before you knock them. You might really like shooting guns.

Note to the lady above me: It's called the Bill of RIGHTS not Privileges!

Also to everyone who is being rude, we don't help our cause when we do that. The worst I did was point out she has no real working knowledge of firearms and seems to have listened to the TV about parts of a gun. Don't just bite her head off. Offer to educate, not spread hate.

Answer 5

1. According to CNN and all of my local network affiliates, the VTech shooter used:

a) a .22 pistol
b) a 9mm pistol

Neither of which is an assault weapon. Both are handguns that are used for plinking, competition shooting, law enforcement (though usually they avoid the .22) and self-defense.

Banning assault weapons because of this? Well...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering that Cho (VTech shooter) didn't have assault weapons.

Besides: gun control only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain and keep firearms. Criminals don't care. They'll steal them, smuggle them in, et cetera - and continue committing crimes against unarmed (or under-armed) citizens.

I say that we keep the firearms. If Crackhead Joe breaks into your house with a knife or a handgun, he won't get too far if you have something more than a cell phone with 911 on speed dial.

Answer 6

Boy, you sure got some people riled up with this question!
I don't really think a person needs a gun unless they are a hunter (of animals!) or an officer of the law or a member of the military. Any other reason is suspect to me.
I see no reason to have an assault weapon as a civilian. None at all.
Also, at the risk of ticking off people who spew about ammendments of the constitution. .. I think owning a gun is a privilege. If you have a history of violence or mental illness you should not be able to have one. Period.

Answer 7

Hell NO! You need to learn what a assault weapons is first instead of listing to the bleeding heart politicians & the liberal news media. The weapons used by the shooter in VA. were defense weapons .The liberal politicians see all firearms as assault weapons and would take away every firearm and leave us at the mercy of the criminals.No thanks!Guns are what keeps America free,God bless America!

Answer 8

As a short answer. If that happened you need to know that any weapon can kill a person. So if they ban assault weapons killers will just use a handgun or something. It wouldnt really make a difference.

Answer 9

No matter what law they pass or what they do there will still be some wack job killing people w/ sporks,or a toenail clipper, its not the guns its the nutty people using them. that old saying "one bad apple ruins the whole bunch". Their are millions of responsible gun owners in the U.S. compaired to the few bad ones.Also it was two 9mm Pistols that he used which are far from an assault weapon. Most guns have clips rifles, pistols etc.

Answer 10

The Killer used a .22 cal pistol and a 9mm pistol.

These are not assault weapons.

Banning guns won't solve anything.

It just takes away the rights of us law abiding citizens.

There are about 3 million gun laws on the books already, more laws will just make it more confusing.