DiscussMormonism.com

Can somebody put forward a cost/benefit argument for allowing assault weapons and large capacity magazines?

Depends on your States laws.

In Utah it's illegal for any convicted felon or person with a mental health record to buy or posses a firearm.

In California there is a 10 round magazine capacity limit, and the only firearm a felon can posses is a single shot bolt action rifle(mainly for ranchers and farmers)

Bottom line when there is a will there is a way.

Personally, I saw something like the Batman shooting happening. I spoke with people that went to midnight showings on their own will because they had that foresight. I think that specific theater should be held at fault.

If restrictions are going to be put in place, blame media for not addressing the issue. People have been using the joker as some anti-christ symbol soon after "The Dark Knight" was released in theaters.

Only a dumbass couldn't see something like this coming from a mile away, but that's most people!

hatersinmyward wrote:Depends on your States laws.

You're quite right: Assault weapon ownership can be limited by state law. I would point out that Utah law would not have prevented James Holmes, who had neither criminal nor psychiatric record, from purchasing his AR-15. But the United States used to have a Federal ban on assault weapons. Congress let the ban expire in 1994.

hatersinmyward wrote:If restrictions are going to be put in place, blame media for not addressing the issue. People have been using the joker as some anti-christ symbol soon after "The Dark Knight" was released in theaters.

I would agree that this massacre would be unlikely at the premier of the latest Pixar or Woody Allen movie. But If the Joker didn't exist, people would just pour their insanity or hatred into another vessel. If you are looking for a role model for nihilistic rage, popular culture will be happy to provide you with a wide selection, in many styles and colors, tailored to your individual needs.

But my original question still remains: What is the cost/benefit ratio for allowing civilians to own assault rifles and large capacity magazines? To expand further: what are the chances that an automatic weapon with a large capacity magazine would be a necessary replacement for a single action weapon for legitimate self defense, versus the chances that a automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine would be used as a weapon to kill many people who pose no threat?

MeDotOrg wrote:Can somebody put forward a cost/benefit argument for allowing assault weapons and large capacity magazines?

No cost/benefit argument. I need just point out that, historically, such weaponry is needed by the good, decent, just, and honest of heart because leftists exist.

Can somebody put forward a cost/benefit argument for allowing assault weapons and large capacity magazines?

To better keep pace with others (not just superior armament but superior numbers) including government entities which may be misused. Look for the first shoot down (has already happened to an environmental group in the USA) of a government UAV in the next few years by a private individual or company.

The bottom line is that gun control laws tend to create a trouble free world for criminals and out of control governments. You might as well ban cars too as they also kill people.

bcspace wrote:

MeDotOrg wrote:Can somebody put forward a cost/benefit argument for allowing assault weapons and large capacity magazines?

To better keep pace with others (not just superior armament but superior numbers) including government entities which may be misused.

I'd like to break down your argument into component parts:

1. Who are the 'others' with superior armament and superior numbers?

2. The government entities that may be misused: Are you saying that every piece of non-nuclear firepower owned by the Government should available to civilians in case they feel the need to assault the government? Howitzers? RPGs? where do you draw the line? What if some paramilitary organization assaults the government because they feel the government is threatening them, but you feel the government is right?

bcspace wrote:Look for the first shoot down (has already happened to an environmental group in the USA) of a government UAV in the next few years by a private individual or company.

Would a high capacity assault rifle be necessary, or even the best weapon, to shoot down a UAV? If the government deploys high-altitude UAVs, what will you use to shoot those down?

bcspace wrote:The bottom line is that gun control laws tend to create a trouble free world for criminals and out of control governments. You might as well ban cars too as they also kill people.

The chances of being killed by gunfire in the Unites States are 40 times greater than Great Britain. If the United States had the same gun murder rate as England since 2000, 100,000 murdered American men, women and children might still be alive today.

As for 'out of control' governments, if you look at Western Democracies with strict gun control, please show me which ones that have become police states due to gun control laws.

And as for cars, I would agree that in a cost/benefit argument for cars, the benefits outweigh the costs. But we still require cars to be registered, pass smog checks, and operators to have a drivers license which has to be renewed. After all, an improperly operated vehicle can kill someone.

But again, the only thing I'm trying to understand here is the cost/benefit ratio for automatic weapons with large capacity magazines.