For the pro-AWBers

[dustinsn3485]

On another forum I'm on, this was written as a response to "I am not for taking guns away from people with carry permits and for hunting. My question is why should anyone need an assault rife or automatic weapon that can hold an extended number of bullets. I had a little 22 rifle that I enjoyed shooting and a 12 gauge. Could someone explain to me why assault rifles are sold legally to basically anyone. I can't understand this. I know I may be starting something but I really would like to know why this happens."

I think it was very well written and thought it needed to be shared. Take the time to read...

We (the citizens) need 'assault rifles' (really, all types of guns), to defend ourselves from 1) criminals, 2) foreign invaders, 3) if criminals takeover the government.

# Criminals

Criminals could care less about gun laws. What is an extra weapons charge when you've already killed somebody?

Some believe that restricting guns in general, will make them harder for criminals to acquire. Consider how that has failed with other banned items in demand.

Cocaine has very severe penalties for possession, plus the most law enforcement resources that have ever been mustered to stamp anything out; yet it thrives and anyone who desires it can acquire it.

Laws will not prevent criminals from easily acquiring guns.

For reason's sake, imagine a world where gun laws eliminated all guns from criminals if that were possible. You do not want that world, because lesser weapons (knives, bats, clubs) are more effective in the hands of ruthless experienced users than normal people.

Imagine defending a home invasion with a knife from a invader with a knife (hint= you should feel very discouraged about your prospects). Now imagine defending a home invasion with a gun from a invader who probably has a gun (it's a scary prospect, but your odds are much better having a gun, even if he has a gun too).

Guns in citizens hands shifts the balance of power towards the citizen because guns are so easily learned and operated.

The principle holds the same with "assault rifles". If criminals have assault rifles, citizens should have access to assault rifles.

To address current events, consider that guns are 100% illegal in schools in America. To the naive citizen that makes them feel safe. To the shooting-spree criminals, that attracts them to schools as excellent opportunities for the most deaths with the least worry of being shot back at.

The Connecticut shooter had no resistance from an armed citizen for dozens of minutes until the police arrived, and death count was terrible.

The Oregon mall shooter's gun jammed, a citizen with a pistol drew his weapon, and the gunman ran away and killed himself (https://www.google.com/search?q=clackamas+mall+ccw). With no armed resistance, that mall shooting could have been much worse.

Your question is about assault rifles, not pistols, but the principle is the same: citizens free access to all weapons is a better response to criminals than disarming the citizens.

Banning citizens from assault rifles, just emboldens criminals who don't have to fear that their victim might have them.

Assault rifles (semi-automatic rifles) are more effective for defending against body-armored criminals, multiple criminals, and criminals attacking a rural property than alternatives (no semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, or semi-automatic pistols).

### Also, gun banning has not worked for two recent examples: Great Britain and Australia.

Violent crime __including violent crime with guns__ is up significantly in both.

# Foreign invaders

I don't know if he actually said it, but a quote attributed to a Japanese admiral is plausible: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass".

We today don't think about defending our country from invasion. It's been a long time since that was a pressing threat.

But no country can think this way for long. The threat of foreign invasion will arrive, and an armed citizenry is by far our trumping defense.

Any country's army is defeatable; but if a country's population is well armed and ready to resist it is undefeatable. Consider the Russian and US Army's experience in Afghanistan-- a fraction of the population with AK-47's and will to fight keeps the world's best armies pinned down, bleeding money, and frustrated.

Citizens need free access to 'assault rifles' because it strikes fear from anyone who would contemplate invading us. I hope that can last for another 100 years or more.

# Criminals taking over the government.

Government has a magnetic attraction to criminals, psychopaths and madmen. Because government is invested with a monopoly on taxing, capital punishment, the military--such power attracts those who have a sick desire to use it to abuse millions of people. The 20th century has a huge pile (100 million+) of dead citizens (=not killed fighting in a war) killed by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, African dictators and other dictators.

These mens' dreams are only possible on a disarmed citizenry. Dictators are scared of citizens with pistols and hunting rifles; and __really__ scared of citizens with 'assault rifles'.

To learn more about this, I recommend Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: http://jpfo.org/. They have great stuff outlining the relationship of Hitler first registering Jewish firearms, then disarming them, then Holocaust. The other murderous dictators followed the same pattern: disarm the class of people you plan to eliminate, then proceed with genocide or enslavement or deportation.

Jews and others were exterminated by the Nazis all over occupied Europe, but not in Switzerland. What was different about Switzerland-- it's a very attractive, resource-rich, German speaking country sharing a long border with Germany, but Germany wouldn't enter it and Jews were safe there. Here's the difference: Switzerland defends their country with a mandated militia of all adult males having a 'assault rifle' with ammunition in their home. That is the perfect formula to maximally deter a Hitler and a Stalin (and it did).

A reader may not feel that our government would do what Hitler or Stalin did. You don't have to believe that. But once the citizens are disarmed, the stage is now set for a Hitler or Stalin that you didn't see coming when asked Congress to ban guns (and guess what, the new guy won't let you get your guns back now that you want them).

# Conclusion

If you divide the world into 3 groups: criminals, citizens and government; gun laws only restrict access to citizens. If citizens lose 'assault rifles', they are more defenseless to attack from the armed groups that still have them: criminals, potential invaders, and criminals who enter government.

[Tpoppa]

Interesting read.

[Pokey]

That makes too much sense, will fall on deaf ears for all the gun haters and those that fear guns.

[Anden]

Nice.

[magley64]

First mistake, simplifying the world into 3 groups... but since that's already the framework you're using...

Foreign invaders: Have tanks and armored cars, things that make your assault weapons a moot point. Same goes for government. Please tell me how effective your assault weapons are against a stealth bomber ...or a jet armed with missiles...

or, sky fairy forbid, an atomic weapon.

Until you've got THOSE kinds of resources, machine guns don't mean a fuggin thing to those types of threats. Maybe they would've back in 1859 or something, but now the only people vulnerable to assault weapons are the citizens.

[cmh_sprint]

First mistake, simplifying the world into 3 groups... but since that's already the framework you're using...

Foreign invaders: Have tanks and armored cars, things that make your assault weapons a moot point. Same goes for government. Please tell me how effective your assault weapons are against a stealth bomber ...or a jet armed with missiles...

or, sky fairy forbid, an atomic weapon.

Until you've got THOSE kinds of resources, machine guns don't mean a fuggin thing to those types of threats. Maybe they would've back in 1859 or something, but now the only people vulnerable to assault weapons are the citizens.

Magz, usually I let you troll away. In this case I cannot. Do some research on the Russians and Afghanistan, the Colombian's and their battle with FARC, the British and the IRA, the Russians and Chechens, the US and Afghanistan. etc., etc., etc. All are large countries who are/were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups. All have spent billions to succeed and all have failed. You can have the biggest, smartest weapons in the world at your disposal but the battle will be long, painful and bloody when you fight against a group of people fighting for their homes, families and their country.

[magley64]

Magz, usually I let you troll away. In this case I cannot. Do some research on the Russians and Afghanistan, the Colombian's and their battle with FARC, the British and the IRA, the Russians and Chechens, the US and Afghanistan. etc., etc., etc. All are large countries who are/were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups. All have spent billions to succeed and all have failed. You can have the biggest, smartest weapons in the world at your disposal but the battle will be long, painful and bloody when you fight against a group of people fighting for their homes, families and their country.

that's because the united states is only targeting specific individuals, and specific groups... if they were actually at war with the entire population of citizens, they would just bomb the whole fuggin country, and be done with it...

not the same

[Tpoppa]

that's because the united states is only targeting specific individuals, and specific groups... if they were actually at war with the entire population of citizens, they would just bomb the whole fuggin country, and be done with it...

not the same

Magz knows...becuase he has a cousin in the Navy or something. So he's a know-it-all about all things military.

[cmh_sprint]

that's because the united states is only targeting specific individuals, and specific groups... if they were actually at war with the entire population of citizens, they would just bomb the whole fuggin country, and be done with it...

not the same

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work either. You can bomb a city to rubble. At some point you have to send in ground troops to clean-up. Urban warfare is ugly in small 3rd world countries let along a major urban center such as New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. , etc. , etc.

[magley64]

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work either. You can bomb a city to rubble. At some point you have to send in ground troops to clean-up. Urban warfare is ugly in small 3rd world countries let along a major urban center such as New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. , etc. , etc.

please tell hiroshima and nagasaki that...

[kawi kid]

I don't think we were in Japan to win hearts and minds like the last few major conflicts since.

[magley64]

I don't think we were in Japan to win hearts and minds like the last few major conflicts since.

that is EXACTLY right...

[kawi kid]

So why would a country drop nukes on its own people like you are suggesting?

[jbot]

so you acknowledge that the every day normal person would already be woefully out classed in fire power.

why would we want to further widen that gap?

[kawi kid]

so you acknowledge that the every day normal person would already be woefully out classed in fire power.

why would we want to further widen that gap?

Because its easier to throw your hands up and be the victim

[magley64]

So why would a country drop nukes on its own people like you are suggesting?

why would a country attack it's own people with assault weapons?

obviously they aren't out to win the hearts and minds of it's own people that way... so why not just fire off a few nukes and get the job done quicker?

[Cheech]

Laws will not prevent criminals from easily acquiring guns.

For reason's sake, imagine a world where gun laws eliminated all guns from criminals if that were possible. You do not want that world, because lesser weapons (knives, bats, clubs) are more effective in the hands of ruthless experienced users than normal people.

Imagine defending a home invasion with a knife from a invader with a knife (hint= you should feel very discouraged about your prospects). Now imagine defending a home invasion with a gun from a invader who probably has a gun (it's a scary prospect, but your odds are much better having a gun, even if he has a gun too).

Guns in citizens hands shifts the balance of power towards the citizen because guns are so easily learned and operated.

The principle holds the same with "assault rifles". If criminals have assault rifles, citizens should have access to assault rifles.

To address current events, consider that guns are 100% illegal in schools in America. To the naive citizen that makes them feel safe. To the shooting-spree criminals, that attracts them to schools as excellent opportunities for the most deaths with the least worry of being shot back at.

The Connecticut shooter had no resistance from an armed citizen for dozens of minutes until the police arrived, and death count was terrible.

The Oregon mall shooter's gun jammed, a citizen with a pistol drew his weapon, and the gunman ran away and killed himself (https://www.google.com/search?q=clackamas+mall+ccw). With no armed resistance, that mall shooting could have been much worse.

Your question is about assault rifles, not pistols, but the principle is the same: citizens free access to all weapons is a better response to criminals than disarming the citizens.

Banning citizens from assault rifles, just emboldens criminals who don't have to fear that their victim might have them.

Assault rifles (semi-automatic rifles) are more effective for defending against body-armored criminals, multiple criminals, and criminals attacking a rural property than alternatives (no semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, or semi-automatic pistols).

Before I get started, I think some definitions are in order. For purposes of my reply, I'm defining "assault weapons" as any semi-auto rifle with a removable magazine of more than 10 rounds. Rifles like the SKS would not be considered an assault rifle (unless you manually convert to removable mag). In all that exposition above, you only have one sentence delineating "assault rifles" from regular firearms.

Body-armor: Sandy Hook shooter had it, Aurora theater shooter had it. For the VAST majority of instances where you have a home invasion or other threat to your person, those shooters aren't going to have it. In order to penetrate Level III or above body armor, you have to be using a caliber round like a 5.56/.223 or above, shotgun slugs aren't going to do it. So what happens if you have a home invasion where you're coming at the bad guy with a fully locked and loaded AR-15? You're going to open fire on him, I'd imagine firing off at least half the magazine due to the adrenaline. Some of your shots will hit, the rest won't. Since you're using a rifle round, those rounds are now going to sail through every wall in your house, and assuming you're shooting at a exterior wall, sail through your wall, into the house next door, and through THEIR wall(s). Don't worry, I'll get to the "rural property" point soon.

Multiple criminals: Unless the criminals are attacking you in a orderly line ala the Revolutionary War, this is going to be a problem no matter what gun you're using. If your argument is a matter of round capacity, then I think the risk of unintented penetration to someone else's home outweighs your desire to tote around 30 rounds so you can hunt down the other guy in your house without having to reload. If you want more capacity, bring another magazine. At least at that point you have to stop and reload, and in that pause you have time to think about what's going on instead of instinctively pulling the trigger due to adrenaline overload.

Rural area: This ties back to the last two points. You don't have any risk of hitting another home, but what will a .223 round do that a 9mm or a .45 won't, besides go through the body armor that the perp isn't wearing?

### Also, gun banning has not worked for two recent examples: Great Britain and Australia.

Violent crime __including violent crime with guns__ is up significantly in both.

Australia never had a constitutional right to own guns, nor did Britain. I will agree that Britain's gun crime is up, and that is largely localized in the gang sections of town. I seem to remember a huge problem with gun-related gang violence in Chicago in recent memory as well, and Detroit, and elsewhere that hasn't made front-page news, so it seems that not having gun control is about as effective as having gun control.

# Foreign invaders

I don't know if he actually said it, but a quote attributed to a Japanese admiral is plausible: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass".

We today don't think about defending our country from invasion. It's been a long time since that was a pressing threat.

But no country can think this way for long. The threat of foreign invasion will arrive, and an armed citizenry is by far our trumping defense.

Any country's army is defeatable; but if a country's population is well armed and ready to resist it is undefeatable. Consider the Russian and US Army's experience in Afghanistan-- a fraction of the population with AK-47's and will to fight keeps the world's best armies pinned down, bleeding money, and frustrated.

Citizens need free access to 'assault rifles' because it strikes fear from anyone who would contemplate invading us. I hope that can last for another 100 years or more.

It might have something to do with the fact that we are at least in the top 2 of standing armies in the world, and most likely number 1 when you factor in active/reserve/paramilitary/police/etc, and definitely number 1 when it comes to technology and readiness. Possible foreign invaders aren't concerned about you clutching your 10/22, they are concerned about the local police force and their well-stocked armory of full-auto, military grade weapons, and the speed in which active and reserve forces can be deployed state-side.

# Criminals taking over the government.

Government has a magnetic attraction to criminals, psychopaths and madmen. Because government is invested with a monopoly on taxing, capital punishment, the military--such power attracts those who have a sick desire to use it to abuse millions of people. The 20th century has a huge pile (100 million+) of dead citizens (=not killed fighting in a war) killed by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, African dictators and other dictators.

These mens' dreams are only possible on a disarmed citizenry. Dictators are scared of citizens with pistols and hunting rifles; and __really__ scared of citizens with 'assault rifles'.

To learn more about this, I recommend Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: http://jpfo.org/. They have great stuff outlining the relationship of Hitler first registering Jewish firearms, then disarming them, then Holocaust. The other murderous dictators followed the same pattern: disarm the class of people you plan to eliminate, then proceed with genocide or enslavement or deportation.

Jews and others were exterminated by the Nazis all over occupied Europe, but not in Switzerland. What was different about Switzerland-- it's a very attractive, resource-rich, German speaking country sharing a long border with Germany, but Germany wouldn't enter it and Jews were safe there. Here's the difference: Switzerland defends their country with a mandated militia of all adult males having a 'assault rifle' with ammunition in their home. That is the perfect formula to maximally deter a Hitler and a Stalin (and it did).

A reader may not feel that our government would do what Hitler or Stalin did. You don't have to believe that. But once the citizens are disarmed, the stage is now set for a Hitler or Stalin that you didn't see coming when asked Congress to ban guns (and guess what, the new guy won't let you get your guns back now that you want them).

This is so preposterous I can barely respond. First off, my guess is the Germans didn't invade Switzerland because the Nazis were using Swiss banks to move all the gold and spoils they were collecting from their activities to places that are neutral, stable, and are guaranteed to be there after the war is over.

Second, if there was a dictator to assume power in the US, do you really think that you and your merry band with whatever weapons you have to bear can stop it? You'd be going up against the entirety of the US government, with seemingly endless levels from the local police, county sheriff, state police, ATF, and FBI, all with VASTLY superior firepower and training.

# Conclusion

If you divide the world into 3 groups: criminals, citizens and government; gun laws only restrict access to citizens. If citizens lose 'assault rifles', they are more defenseless to attack from the armed groups that still have them: criminals, potential invaders, and criminals who enter government.

No, no, and hell no.

[magley64]

so you acknowledge that the every day normal person would already be woefully out classed in fire power.

why would we want to further widen that gap?

you think it better to arm everyone and have them kill each other over insignificant issues?

I mean if your position is that a better armed public is always the answer, why don't we just hand out armed guns to everyone? a 3 yr old can be taught how to shoot.. right?

[kawi kid]

Um because if it would ever wish to rebuild and hope that the populous would follow its not going to create collateral damage on a massive scale. I would say its the same reason we haven't dropped a nuke on Afghanistan.

[magley64]

Um because if it would ever wish to rebuild and hope that the populous would follow its not going to create collateral damage on a massive scale. I would say its the same reason we haven't dropped a nuke on Afghanistan.

so suddenly the evil dictator has a conscience... we can kill and enslave these people and they will go along with it, but we can't kill a bunch of them at once...then they will never go along with it.

[motozachl]

Doesn't matter. Guns are fun to shoot

[Cheech]

Magz, usually I let you troll away. In this case I cannot. Do some research on the Russians and Afghanistan

Proxy war with the US providing advanced weaponry including Stinger missiles. Doesn't really apply.

the Colombian's and their battle with FARC

Venezuela was doing a lot of the supplying of FARC weaponry as well. Doesn't apply.

the British and the IRA

Libya/Central Europe, and also through smuggling from the US.

the Russians and Chechens

Unclear, could be left over from the Soviet bloc, unconfirmed reports of Russian soldiers selling arms to Chechens.

, the US and Afghanistan

Iran/Hezbollah/AQ, take your pick of American enemies in the ME

. etc., etc., etc. All are large countries who are/were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups. All have spent billions to succeed and all have failed. You can have the biggest, smartest weapons in the world at your disposal but the battle will be long, painful and bloody when you fight against a group of people fighting for their homes, families and their country.

All are countries who were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups until a state actor or quasi-state actor stepped in to level the playing field. You don't necessarily have to "win", you just have to make it hurt for the other guys, and advanced weaponry does just that. This level of arms isn't something that the average Joe has access to in the US.

[jbot]

you think it better to arm everyone and have them kill each other over insignificant issues?

I mean if your position is that a better armed public is always the answer, why don't we just hand out armed guns to everyone? a 3 yr old can be taught how to shoot.. right?

where did you get "arm everyone" in what i said? there are a gazillion guns privately owned in the US. everyone has not killed each other over insignificant issues. a very very small number of people have killed people over insignificant issues, i guess.

i dunno where you get your ideas of what my positions are, but my words that you quoted said we should not further widen the gap that you yourself acknowledged as existing. where are these armed guns? i wanna see it.

is it like this, but with arms instead of sexy legs?

and 3 year olds? your partial retard is showing

[CoolWhip]

Proxy war with the US providing advanced weaponry including Stinger missiles. Doesn't really apply.

Venezuela was doing a lot of the supplying of FARC weaponry as well. Doesn't apply.

Libya/Central Europe, and also through smuggling from the US.

Unclear, could be left over from the Soviet bloc, unconfirmed reports of Russian soldiers selling arms to Chechens.

, the US and Afghanistan

Iran/Hezbollah/AQ, take your pick of American enemies in the ME

. etc., etc., etc. All are large countries who are/were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups. All have spent billions to succeed and all have failed. You can have the biggest, smartest weapons in the world at your disposal but the battle will be long, painful and bloody when you fight against a group of people fighting for their homes, families and their country.

All are countries who were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups until a state actor or quasi-state actor stepped in to level the playing field. You don't necessarily have to "win", you just have to make it hurt for the other guys, and advanced weaponry does just that. This level of arms isn't something that the average Joe has access to in the US.

And what? You think that if the U.S. was in a civil war or were to be invaded that no other country would be arming us? It's nice to at least have something to start with.

[magley64]

where did you get "arm everyone" in what i said? there are a gazillion guns privately owned in the US. everyone has not killed each other over insignificant issues. a very very small number of people have killed people over insignificant issues, i guess.

i dunno where you get your ideas of what my positions are, but my words that you quoted said we should not further widen the gap that you yourself acknowledged as existing. where are these armed guns? i wanna see it.

is it like this, but with arms instead of sexy legs?

and 3 year olds? your partial retard is showing

It seems we have 2 directions to go if we want anything to change...

you seem opposed to making these types of weapons less prevalent, so the alternative is making them more prevalent.