Firepower

[jahcs]

Doc Posted: Mar 2 2004, 01:57 PM

I dunno about other folks, but I am SICK to death about hearing about stuff like this on the news. I am SICK and tired of hearing about officers bringing capguns to a shoot out. I am bloody well fed up with people crying about victims rights and the cruelty of large calibre weapons used to stop crimes. Screw the victims. What about the cruelty of officers being gunned down by freaking hand held cannons? It's not safe out there. Most of the crime reports I hear about, read about, or see on TV, the crooks have better firepower and body armor then the police do. And that strikes me as being WRONG.

This is one problem I see with America. The media portrays the "poor desperate bank robber turned to a life of crime with no other way out and then gets shot" as the VICTIM. In the incidents Doc speaks of the victims are the bank employees, bank patrons, the police officers, and all of their families.

The bank robber CHOSE to rob a bank, and CHOSE to bring a gun, and CHOSE to fire at police officers. The criminal is the attacker, not the victim. If people choose not to break the law America would be a safer place ;) -- even if there were a gun in EVERY home. This last point is only true with responsible gun ownership and storage. Keep the weapons in a suitable place away from children, alcohol, etc.

edit: Doc's credit and timestamp at top of quote added

[gekko]

(1) Gun size has little to do with police. A bank robber hopes to be gone before they get there.

(2) No the bank robbers would have been shot dead a lot sooner. You have to be a complete moron or suicidal to rob a bank where everyone is armed. There is a reason the guy who tried to hold up the gun store made it into the Darwin awards. :P

(3) Idealogic drivel. By this logic we should just unarm all police and that will fix all gun problems. Just because you don't like guns don't let that blind you to the fact that the good or evil that comes from a gun depends on who is holding it. <_<

(1) If gun size has nothing to do with it, why do they bother with body armor? A "good" bank robber will be prepared no only for the "best-case" scenario (getting away before cops arrive), they will also be prepared for when the cops show up. So the big guns are meant to outfight the cops as well as frighten to people so they don't resist.

(2) You're assuming every gun owner is well trained. You're assuming every gun owner is an expert marskmen. You're assuming no gun owner will panic under the pressure. You're assuming no gun owner will hit anyone but the bank robber. Guns simply offer too much power with too little control.

(3) My logic doesn't suggest taking guns away from the police at all. I'm a realist in this situation. My logic flat out states that if NO ONE had guns, people would be safer.

Oh, and by the way -- I'm not opposed to guns, or people owning guns. If someone thinks having a small handgun at home will make their family safe, that's fine. If a farmer wants a rifle to hunt deer and keep wolves from attacking his animals, that's fine. My problem is twofold:
1) it's too easy for a poorly trained civilian (particularly in america, but I'm not singling out the states by any means) to get ahold of gns far beyond any reasonable need,
2) it's too easy to obtain weapons far beyond the need posed by hunting or self defence.

Now, a few other things I want to address from earlier posts in this thread.

Doc said "Invading America would be, at best, a dicey proposition, just because of nuts like me."

Doc, do you truly believe this? Invading America would be a dicey proposition because of the army, air force, navy, marines, and other military forces. If someone managed to batter through the military might of the states, do you honestly believe that "nuts like you" would be able to do anything?

Doc also said "I would be willing to pay for out of my own wallet guns for our local Greer officers if it were allowed."

If a bank robber is planning a heist that will net him, say, a billion dollars. If he has to spend 200 million dollars to arm himself appropriately, who cares? Can you afford to spend 200 million dollars to arm each and every police officer in america?

You can't plan on outspending the bad guys. You can't plan on outshooting them. They'll spend and shoot whatever they have to to win.

The answer is not more guns. You have to make it harder for them to get those guns.

<<edit: here to end, forgot one thing I wanted to address
Mithrandir said: "So you're suggesting that if bank robbers could gain access to these things now that they wouldn't use them? Of course they would."

No, they wouldn't use them just because they "could" gain access to them. It depends on the cost versus the benefit, and it depends on the need. As of right now, bank robbers don't need to use nerve gas and missile launchers to outpower the cops. But give the cops bigger and better guns, and they will have to.

gekko

[Rhydderch Hael]

Alas, I've lost the referencing post, and the hyperlink attached to it, forever and ever— but I did come across a news item in a small-time Midwest news site concerning a robbery attempt where the storeowner shot the criminal.

The article was filled with insinuations that the storeowner was the one committing an offense (to paraphrase one memorable remark in the article from memory: "...it appears at this time that the investigation indicates the storeowner has not been found of any wrongdoing..." and actually calls the robber a victim in the article. Twice. That label was never applied to the storeowner.

The reporter seemed to have some crossed perspectives on crimes and guns: in the article, the man using the gun was the assailant, and the one who was shot was the victim. Never did mind that the assailant was the man being robbed, and the victim was the one doing the robbing.

[Bob]

Ah, yes, we had a semi-similar incident in the UK a few years ago.
Story
Although that's by no means the best page available, there are 39 pages of results on the BBC alone.

Basically, a farmer in an isolated farmhouse who'd been broken into 2 times before heard burglars downstairs.
grabbed his (illegal) shotgun & loaded it.
started to go downstairs, and that moment one of the burglars shone a light in his face, and he opened fire, killing one of the burglars and wounding the other.

Guess who got done?
That's right, the farmer, life imprisonment for muder (which was subsequently reduced to 5 years for manslaughter on appeal), along with 10 years for the wounding of the other guy, and a year for the illegalness of the shotgun).

The wounded burglar gets 3 years for conspiracy to burgle (presumably because he ran when he got shot at, and thus didn't steal anything, couldn't be done for burglary)

too often now, people are getting into trouble for defending themselves, or their property.
Another case was a school teacher who was cleaning out a lincensed rifle that he owned, heard burglars come in, and went o head them off with this, unloaded, not-even-fully-reassembled-yet rifle, and chased them ino the street. Because he took the gun into the street when he chased them, he got taken to court... he was acquitted, but the fact that it even got to court is astonishing.

That coupled with the fact that if a burglar is injured in your home whilst in the process of burgling you, s/he it entitled to sue you, if you were responsible for their injury (you know, like having a loose floorboard which you step over, but they chose to step on). Health & safety can basically be on your back if, after you're burgled, it turns out that your house wasn't a safe place to burgle. Any 'home alone' type antics would land you in serious doggy-do-do, assuming that you were slightly older than Kevin.

"an Enlighman's home is his castle" has just gone out of the window in recent years. Now it's: "an Englishman's home is his castle, so long as he leaved the drawbridge down, portcullis up, and doesn't stop people coming in and taking what they want with any more than that which they use"

umm, yeah, I'm just rambling now, I just get incensed at stories like this.

-Bob :angry:

[Sir_Die_alot]

1: With your logic any security using guns has raised the threat level and foced a robber to upgrade theirs. Maybe we should arm people with rubber duckys so criminals will use Nerf™sports equipment. <_<

2: You take the other side. You are assuming everyone who carries a gun has insufficient ability with it. Guns are not particularly complicated at close range. I am a horrid shot even without kickback, but even I can hit something 20 feet away

3: "My logic flat out states that if NO ONE had guns, people would be safer." As I said: "Idealogic drivel."

1) it's too easy for a poorly trained civilian (particularly in america, but I'm not singling out the states by any means) to get ahold of gns far beyond any reasonable need,
2) it's too easy to obtain weapons far beyond the need posed by hunting or self defence.

Interesting word "need". If you want to start slinging that around you can get down to most people don't need a gun. Those that do what is their need? Who determins this? I doubt Doc needs half the guns he has; should he be forced to give them up should someone decide his need isn't great enough? I don't disagree with you about the current meathods used to determine who gets a firearm and who doesn't are flawed (see my previous post). However I have no problem someone who doesn't nessesarily "need" a certain firearm owning one, as long as they are law abiding and resonably proficient with it.

[Doc]

Interesting word "need". If you want to start slinging that around you can get down to most people don't need a gun. Those that do what is their need? Who determins this? I doubt Doc needs half the guns he has; should he be forced to give them up should someone decide his need isn't great enough? I don't disagree with you about the current meathods used to determine who gets a firearm and who doesn't are flawed (see my previous post). However I have no problem someone who doesn't nessesarily "need" a certain firearm owning one, as long as they are law abiding and resonably proficient with it.

You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers. No joke intended. I stockpile weapons because I can. Should society fall for some reason... Or if anarchy breaks out... And it does happen, I can use simple but effective common as dirt firearms as simple trade currency. All the ammo I have stockpiled can be used as nickles and dimes as well. Should something happen, I can infact, arm a small militia. If I choose to play General, it's my God Given American Born Right. Not only can you form a militia, you can stockpile the weapons you need to arm it properly and organize homeland defense. When and if something should ever happen, people like me, eccentric paranoid living out in the boonies hermits will be the deciding factor. Should something happen, there will be plenty of people singing a different tune, glad that people like me are around.

The guns I keep has nothing to do with what "I" need. They are merely a back up plan should the worst happen. Think of the guns I keep more as what you don't realize that "you" need.

B)

[Kevin]

I dunno about you guys, but a 1% hit rate seems well, sucky. I generally support the total abolishment of firearms, but one thing I will insist on, if guns HAVE to be around,&nbsp; are much stricter criteria for a license. Yearly marksmanship tests, for instance. At least a 30-50% hit rate before you pass. Maybe even psych evaluations. If you only hit 1 time out of every 100 shots, you might as well arm folks with frag grenades, improve their accuracy. Hey, it might kill bystanders as well, but at least they'll blow up the perps. Collateral damage is inevitable.

I don't think you interpreted the statistics correctly, though I can see that interpretation, and yours could be valid. I just don't think it is.

When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances.

I take that to mean that when someone pulls a gun to protect themselves the criminal is wounded in 1 of every 100 instances. I don't think that shots are even fired in most of those instances. The gun is pulled the criminal flees. That is fine for most home defenders. The immediate threat is removed. My suspicion is that of those 100 cases, shots were only fired in 10 of them. I would suspect that of the 10 shots fired, at least half were not aimed at the criminal. That being said a 20% hit rate still sucks. Of course the military only wants you to get 57.5% (23 out of 40) and you know the order the targets are coming up (they are also 50 meters or more away, but you have a rifle, eh).

I could be way way off, I'm just remember some things that I heard growing up from my friends dad, who was an officer in a small town (10,000 people). I just seem to recall that in the vast majority case where guns are used in defense shots are never fired. Could be wrong.

[gekko]

1: With your logic any security using guns has raised the threat level and foced a robber to upgrade theirs. Maybe we should arm people with rubber duckys so criminals will use Nerf™sports equipment. <_<

2: You take the other side. You are assuming everyone who carries a gun has insufficient ability with it. Guns are not particularly complicated at close range. I am a horrid shot even without kickback, but even I can hit something 20 feet away

3: "My logic flat out states that if NO ONE had guns, people would be safer." As I said: "Idealogic drivel."

1) it's too easy for a poorly trained civilian (particularly in america, but I'm not singling out the states by any means) to get ahold of gns far beyond any reasonable need,
2) it's too easy to obtain weapons far beyond the need posed by hunting or self defence.

(4) Interesting word "need". If you want to start slinging that around you can get down to most people don't need a gun. Those that do what is their need? Who determins this? I doubt Doc needs half the guns he has; should he be forced to give them up should someone decide his need isn't great enough? I don't disagree with you about the current meathods used to determine who gets a firearm and who doesn't are flawed (see my previous post). However I have no problem someone who doesn't nessesarily "need" a certain firearm owning one, as long as they are law abiding and resonably proficient with it.

(1) If you think how well armed the cops are DOESN'T affect what weapons the bad guys use... well, what can I say. Those guys knew EXACTLY what they would be up against, and they knew EXACTLY what they needed to overpower them. They didn't just say to themselves "wow, that gun's cool, let's use that."

(2) I'm assuming that all it takes is ONE untrained slob with a magnum in his pocket to start more carnage than we've yet seen in a bank robbery. My point is that owning a gun gives you the power of life and death and does nothing to ensure you are capable of controlling that power.

(3) You call it idealogic drivel. I call it the truth, and suggest taking steps towards achieving that state. I don't suggest it will be easy or simple, or finished overnight, but I do believe it to be a worthy goal.

(4) Interesting indeed. I'd agree with both Doc and yourself -- Doc doesn't need his guns. If my use of the word "need" bothers you so much, replace it with whatever word you want -- my argument stands. Hunting a deer or defending your house can be acchieved without a magnum or an assault rifle.

Doc said "If I choose to play General, it's my God Given American Born Right. Not only can you form a militia, you can stockpile the weapons you need to arm it properly and organize homeland defense. When and if something should ever happen, people like me, eccentric paranoid living out in the boonies hermits will be the deciding factor. Should something happen, there will be plenty of people singing a different tune, glad that people like me are around."

People like you being around are my worst nightmare. As I said previously, if someone gathers enough military strength to batter through the US army, people like you are going to be child's play. I consider a different scenario to be more likely: somebody starts a war in our own backyard with one of those stockpiles Doc is so proud of.

Here's an interesting thing for you to consider: guns do not make you safe. Guns are designed to do one thing: injure or kill other people (or animals, but that's besides the point). The threat of using the gun to hurt someone can give you the illusion of safety, but the gun itself can only be used as an offensive weapon.

Oh, and in regards to the "don't call the bad guy a victim" idea. Those laws are in place for a very good reason: to place responsability on homeowners. Lethal force should be reserved for desperate situations, whether it's in your own home against a burglar or in a bank that's getting robbed. While I have no sympathy for the burglars in these cases and agree it's absurd to care more about the bad guy than the true victim, it doesn't take away from the responsability of the homeowner.

gekko

[DeeBye]

I figure that this is a good thread to post this story. It concerns banks, guns, a crazy person with guns, and my family.

When I was a wee lad I lived in a very small town in Ontario. Iroquois, Ontario (population 1,200) is a nice little hamlet situated on the northern shore of the St. Lawrence River. I spent my single-digit years growing up there.

There was just one bank in Iroquois (Royal Bank, in case you wondered), and my father was the manager. It was a piddly little bank. It was probably smaller than most strip-mall convenience stores. There were four rooms. My dad's office was right beside the entrance (maybe 10' x 15'). The meat-and-potatoes public area of the bank (complete with 2 tellers) came next, followed by the vault and a tiny employee lunchroom in the back. There wasn't much to see.

Since this was the only bank in town, every farmer within a 50 mile radius had to do his/her banking there. This was before the days of bank-by-phone, debit cards, internet banking, and cash machines. My dad dealt with all of the farmers (and most everyone else in town) on a weekly basis.

Well, one of the farmers defaulted on his farm's mortgage.

He was behind enough in loan payments that the bank had no choice but to foreclose. This wasn't my father's decision, mind you. That's just the way banks work. If you can't pay off your loan, your collateral is forfeit.

So, this farmer gets the notice that he will be losing his farm due to his inability to meet his loan payments. Who's to blame?

In the demented mind of this farmer, it was my father's fault.

The farmer loaded up a shotgun and walked into my father's office. He pointed it at him and was rambling on incoherently about how he was screwed because he had no money to pay off his loan.

This part of the story is a little light on details, mostly due to the fact that my father never talked about it much. I guess having a loaded 12-guage poited at you will do that to you.

From what I gather, my dad hit the "secret alarm button" under his desk and talked to this farmer as much as he could. He delayed him long enough for cops to show up and deal with the situation.

I don't know the specifics, but my dad was not shot and the cops arrested the farmer.

The story gets scarier.

The farmer is arrested, arraigned, and all that jazz. His shotgun is of course confiscated. The judge, for whatever reason, doesn't bother locking him up until trial. HE LET HIM GO HOME WITH A PROMISE TO APPEAR!

The farmer owned many shotguns, and the first thing he did when he got home was to load one up and come to the front door of our home. Like I said, we lived in a small town where everyone knew everyone. The residence of the local bank manager was common knowledge.

The farmer knocked on our front door (shotgun in hand). It was after banking hours, so my father was home. My dad peeked out our front window to see who was knocking, and the next thing I knew I was wisked off out the back door. I was probably 4 years old, and my brother was 6. We had no idea what was going on.

We pushed through our hedges so we could get to a neighbour's house. My dad called the cops, and they promptly arrested the farmer. I think he was still banging on our front door, shotgun in hand, when they showed up.

My family was put up in a hotel in a faraway city (OMG Witness Protection Program!) for a few weeks until this nut was firmly implanted in prison. I missed a few weeks of school.

My father's description of how he felt while a shotgun was pointed at him is eerie, and I only heard it once. He doesn't talk about it.

"I felt calm. I've never been so calm in my life."

[Bone]

Doc, wrote:

Go to just about any ghetto or inner city projects. School shootings and stabbings are a daily fact of life, and, nobody gives a rats ass about those. Hell, on a day when 3 or 4 kids die, you would think that would make the news too... But nobody cares.

Do you have a cite for this assertion? It seems made up. Maybe you're just using hyperbole, but I couldn't tell.

I am a good responsible gun owner. I have deadly accurate aim. I have a well developed sense of morals. I am a pacifist who dislikes violence. I am a model gun owning citizen. If I should have to shoot you, I will shoot you in the leg or the arm and make sure you live, …

Every police agency in the country [U.S.] trains it's officers to shoot for the largest visible section of the body, usually center mass. The reason? Because it's hard as hell to hit the leg or arm when in a situation that calls for use of deadly force. If police are going to draw their gun, fire it, they are shooting to kill. Some people are superior marksman than the police. I don’t know if you are one such person. However, if the purpose of a gun is to kill, which it is, I'd propose that they should be designed to do just that. Incapacitate, stop a person, by killing them.

***

Posted by gekko:
The only solution that will truly solve this problem is to make these guns more difficult to obtain. The fact is that people don't need assault rifles. People don't need armor piercing bullets. Americans need to wake up and take a good long look at their gun control laws.

This is an interesting statement. Parse it out. "…people don't need assault rifles." and "Americans need to wake up…". That's funny, it seems like you think you know what other people need more than they do. You know what they don't need, and what they do need. The only person that determines what their needs are, is that person themselves. It is only arrogance to attempt to make that decision for them.

I would suggest anyone who hasn't yet seen it go out and view the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" by Michael Moore.

Just an aside, but just because the movie was awarded an Oscar in the "documentary" category, does not a documentary make. Most documentaries rely on fact, rather than propoganda. Check out some details.

[Occhidiangela]

Crisp. And yes, Mr Moore's Oscar for a documentary filled with made up "facts" is just another reason to doubt t

he credibility of anyone in Hollywood for other than pure entertainment purposes. If only Osama would have plane bombed Hollywood, which according to the standard Islamist rhetoric is part of the cultural infection that America spreads to the world, he'd have had some Americans feeling empathy for his cause. :P

[gekko]

This is an interesting statement.&nbsp; Parse it out.&nbsp; "…people don't need assault rifles."&nbsp; and "Americans need to wake up…".&nbsp; That's funny, it seems like you think you know what other people need more than they do.&nbsp; You know what they don't need, and what they do need.&nbsp; The only person that determines what their needs are, is that person themselves.&nbsp; It is only arrogance to attempt to make that decision for them.

Fine -- you tell me what any citizen of america needs an assault rifle for. When you can come up with a legal, realistic, reasonable need for owning an assault rifle... then we'll talk about the first bit. As for "the only person that determines what their [own] needs are...", well, that's simply wrong. If I (well, let's say Bill Gates, since he could probably afford it) decided I (he) 'needs' a small nuclear warhead and a half dozen guards armed with uzis, I sure as hell hope the states steps in and says "sorry, but no."

The second bit ("Americans need to wake up...") is my opinion. I think it's far too easy to get guns in the states (both legally and illegally, btw). I believe it's a big enough problem that it NEEDS to be looked at. Examples such as the one that started this thread only support that opinion.

gekko

[Tal]

Every police agency in the country [U.S.] trains it's officers to shoot for the largest visible section of the body, usually center mass.&nbsp; The reason? Because it's hard as hell to hit the leg or arm when in a situation that calls for use of deadly force.&nbsp; If police are going to draw their gun, fire it, they are shooting to kill.

Exactly - I was a military policeman. We were taught that if we put our finger on the trigger it was to put the suspect on the ground. It was drummed into our heads that if you fired your weapon you were to hit the center mass - anything else and you weren't doing your job. I can remember vividly my instructor(s) explaining that arms and legs move in a situation like that - and that a suspect can (and usually will) return fire if hit in the legs or arms. Better to knock them down and secure the suspects weapon.

Doc> If it were me I wouldn't worry about helping the bad guy if you did hit him in the leg. He's liable to get better medical attention and a prostethic in prison anyway. ;) :D

Cheers,
-Tal

[Bone]

gecko wrote:

Fine -- you tell me what any citizen of america needs an assault rifle for. When you can come up with a legal, realistic, reasonable need for owning an assault rifle... then we'll talk about the first bit.

I think you missed my point. I can't tell you why a person may need an assault rifle. No one can, except for that person. I can conjecture, but then I'd be doing the same thing you have, assuming that I know better than the person themselves. You have asserted that individuals have no need for assault rifles. The onus is on you to demonstrate that.

The point is it's not about need. Need is completely subjective, and irrelevant. Some would say that people don't need cigarettes, that people don't need cars than can exceed 100mph. Those people would be like you, arrogant enough to assume that they know what people need and don't need.

If I (well, let's say Bill Gates, since he could probably afford it) decided I (he) 'needs' a small nuclear warhead and a half dozen guards armed with uzis, I sure as hell hope the states steps in and says "sorry, but no."

The State would step in. They wouldn't however say, "Sorry, Bill. You don't need a nuclear warhead, so you can't have one. If you in fact did need one, we'd let it slip by, but since you don’t, the answer's no." Instead, they would say, "Bill, owning a nuclear warhead violates local, state, and federal laws. They are prohibited by statute. You are not permitted to own nuclear warheads." Need has nothing to do with it. You can no more determine what another person needs (in this context), than I can determine what your favorite flavor of ice cream is. Vanilla?

[Doc]

As the owner of many large powerful full on assault weapons, I can give a few funny as well as serious reasons to keep them.

Must be ready if drug crazed neo nazi skinheads gather in mass and attack in the night. Or Klansmen. Insert your favourite boogeyman.

Crack smoking PCP snorting Super Deer.

Total anarchy. Look at Haiti. I am pretty sure some folks down that way are glad they own high powered assault rifles. And don't tell me anarchy does not happen here. Having lived through several riots, I know all about anarchy.

I am an Anarchist my self. I reserve the right to keep weapons and or explosives. My reasons are my own. Every last single weapon or explosive device I own I have obtained legally. 100%. I have been to military surplus auctions and have obtained several fun and wonderful and mind numbingly freakishly deadly toys. Sold legally. I love budget crunches and when Uncle Sam opens his Toy Store, I head to town with LOTS of cash in hand. Better me, a morally responsable upright citizen then some whacko with an agenda.

I am well prepared for Total Breakdown. Like The Stand. Superflu, alien invasion, Damn Commie Reds, take your pick. Grabazoids included. If it bleeds, I do believe I have a weapon to kill it. Or vapourize it.

Ever seen the movie The Birds? That DOES happen on occasion. It's called Swarming Behaviour. Should it ever happen around me, I am well prepared. Bring it on Tweety... I ain't skeered.

Swarming Snake Invasions. Folks that know me well enough will already be familiar with this situation.

Squirrels. Nobody suspects squirrels. The quiet enemy among us. Your nuts are not safe.

[wundergore]

I dunno about you guys, but a 1% hit rate seems well, sucky. I generally support the total abolishment of firearms, but one thing I will insist on, if guns HAVE to be around,&nbsp; are much stricter criteria for a license. Yearly marksmanship tests, for instance. At least a 30-50% hit rate before you pass. Maybe even psych evaluations. If you only hit 1 time out of every 100 shots, you might as well arm folks with frag grenades, improve their accuracy. Hey, it might kill bystanders as well, but at least they'll blow up the perps. Collateral damage is inevitable.

A 30-50% hit rate means that 5-7 rounds fired out of a 10 round magazine (the standard issue for civillian handguns) MISS the target. Better than 1%, but still laugably low, not to mention extremely dangerous (especially when you don't know where those rounds are headed down range). If you are going to institute accuracy requirements, one should probably aim for (no pun intended) somewhere around 99.9%. Collateral damage is not inevitable with proper training.

W>

[gekko]

The point is it's not about need.&nbsp; Need is completely subjective, and irrelevant.&nbsp; Some would say that people don't need cigarettes, that people don't need cars than can exceed 100mph.&nbsp; Those people would be like you, arrogant enough to assume that they know what people need and don't need.

Ok, I'll tell you why civillians in the states don't need assault rifles.

Guns can be used for three purposes: self defence, hunting, or an offensive weapon (I'd personally argue that every use of a gun boils down to use as an offensive weapon, but since that's only my opinion, we'll leave it be for now). Since a US civilian cannot declare war on his neighbour and just assault him (say, for refusing to hand over imaginary weapons of mass destruction?), use as a purely offensive weapon is out. If you take an assault rifle hunting, well... that's both illegal and stupid. There'd be so little left of anything you actually HIT, it's clearly pointless far past the level of stupidity. So that leaves self defence. And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

There is no need for assault rifles in the hands of civilians. I consider it a self-evident truth, but there's my reasoning.

Oh, by the way. Here's how I, as a debater, would analyze this thread:
- problem recognized by all (bad guys better armed than cops)
- 2 solutions suggested: (1) give the cops bigger and better weapons, (2) take the bigger weapons away from the bad guys.

The second solution is more difficult. I readily admit that. However, I would also point out that the first solution is impossible. There will always be a bigger gun, and the bad guys have more money (and will) to spend to have the "biggest" weapon.

gekko

<edit: ps: oh, and one more thing.

The State would step in.&nbsp; They wouldn't however say, "Sorry, Bill.&nbsp; You don't need a nuclear warhead, so you can't have one.&nbsp; If you in fact did need one, we'd let it slip by, but since you don’t, the answer's no."&nbsp; Instead, they would say, "Bill, owning a nuclear warhead violates local, state, and federal laws.&nbsp; They are prohibited by statute.&nbsp; You are not permitted to own nuclear warheads."&nbsp; Need has nothing to do with it.

Actually, you're wrong here. I'm talking about changing gun control laws in the states. My reason is that people don't need assault rifles (see above). So in this case, need has EVERYTHING to do with it, because we're discussing the need for changing the current laws.

[ZatarRufus]

And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

I think the opposing view is to be prepared in the event the situation is not reasonable nor realistic. What would you do, have a questionaire and/or an application for crimminals before they entered your property?

ZR

[Selby]

And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

The only flaw to this argument is that it comes down to once again you saying that you know what other people's situations and mindsets are and that they don't need something based on that. Just because someone can get something doesn't mean they need it. Like our computers. We don't need them to be as fast as they are, a 486 or Pentium will do just fine. We don't need cars that go over 75MPH as the speed limit rarely exceeds that and it would cut down on speeding tickets and reckless driving. We don't need all varieties of soft drinks and sizes on the market because only one brand in a 20oz container is good enough for everyone.

Assault rifles are overkill for most situations, yes. But to say that no one would ever need one is going down the whole "we know what's best for you" slope that so many people dislike. I feel that people own assault rifles because it just tips the scale in their favor during a confrontation. I wouldn't mess with someone with one and I bet most other people who don't have a deathwish wouldn't either.

[Lerkur]

Since you are so keen on debate I will outline the weakest points of your argument here.

Your method for ruling out use of an assault rifle as a purely offensive weapon is flawed. Part of the reason the second amendment exists is so that the civilians are not unarmed if they should ever decide that injustices of government necessitate a secession. In other words, the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted to be sure that civilians would be able to declare war on the U.S. government. Remember that this was written at a time when any civilian could conceivably be as well armed as the country’s military forces. A progression in the complexity and cost of modern weaponry has made it unlikely that a citizen would be able to afford enough weaponry to put him on an even footing with the modern U.S. military. (However a militia could find itself armed well if funded by a rather wealthy individual or corporation) So while it may be impractical, it is still in the spirit of the law that a citizen should be armed well enough to rebel against his government successfully. Changing this would require amending the Constitution. More specifically, it would require the removal of one of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights. This is not likely to happen.

So that leaves self defense. And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

This little bit of reasoning is not only flawed, but undermines your own argument. First off, this is not reasoning it is a proclamation. You “flat out say” something which you have no facts to back up. Not only that, but what you are essentially saying is that the level of danger presented by a handgun is no less than that presented by an assault rifle. If this were the case, then you would have no argument for doing away with assault rifles and not doing away with hand guns. You cannot say that an assault rifle is more dangerous than a handgun to innocent bystanders without accepting the fact that it is also more dangerous to its intended target. Even worse, you specifically specify a “small handgun.” Doc’s story should be enough to teach you that even a larger caliber handgun is more effective in some self defense situations than a smaller (9mm) one.

Oh, by the way. Here's how I, as a debater, would analyze this thread:
- problem recognized by all (bad guys better armed than cops)
- 2 solutions suggested: (1) give the cops bigger and better weapons, (2) take the bigger weapons away from the bad guys.

The second solution is more difficult. I readily admit that. However, I would also point out that the first solution is impossible. There will always be a bigger gun, and the bad guys have more money (and will) to spend to have the "biggest" weapon.

Another problem with your debating skills is the recognition of the feasibility of the solutions presented. You simply declare the first solution to be impossible without any facts backing it up. In fact you have even identified the wrong solution. The solution is not to make sure that the weapons that the police have are bigger than those of the criminals. The solution is to make sure that the weapons the police have are big enough to defeat the defenses of the criminals. There is a big difference.