The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 20    Average: 2.8/5]
157 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 7858
Rating: 2.8
Category: Tech
Date: 12/31/12 09:29 AM

157 Responses to Assault Rifle Vs. Sporting Rifle

  1. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:31 am
    Link: Assault Rifle Vs. Sporting Rifle - The media`s telling you `assault weapons` need to be banned for safety. Problem is, assault rifles were banned in 1986.
  2. Profile photo of Reignblazer
    Reignblazer Male 18-29
    2334 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:37 am
    It really doesn`t matter. One bullet is all it takes.
  3. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:38 am
    They were banned yes, and bush unbanned them. Since they got unbanned they were used in a ton of murders. More so than when they were banned.

    Also, when they are considered banned, then you can take action against people who have them. Thereby stopping the potential of any murders from happening.

    For some reason, gun fanactics want peopel to do things AFTER the incident has happened, instead of stopping the means of doing it in the first place.
  4. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:40 am
    Also i laughed hard at the video uploader trying to claim that they want to remove an americans constitutional rights. It`s just gun fanaticism at its best.

    They are trying harder and harder to justify their love of hardware that is only used to kill. And with each outburst they get harder and harder to believe.
  5. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:40 am
    Leftist gun knowledge at work.......
  6. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:42 am
    @tedgp

    Dead wrong the 1986 laws is regarding class 3 weapons one that fire in full auto or bursts which is considered an assualt weapons. Semi-auto are not.
  7. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:44 am

    He needs to stop confusing the issue with facts.
  8. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:48 am

  9. Profile photo of Kegomatix
    Kegomatix Male 18-29
    1341 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:51 am
    There are people who don`t know this?
  10. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:52 am

  11. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3362 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:55 am
    they should make killing people aginst the law
  12. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6275 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:57 am
    I common sense presentation.

    Something you will NOT see by Feinstein or her ilk.

    After all, it`s all about `feelings`, not facts.
  13. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:57 am

    "when they are considered banned, then you can take action against people who have them"
    `Cause criminals obey laws like that.

    "gun fanactics want peopel to do things AFTER the incident has happened, instead of stopping the means of doing it in the first place"
    As opposed to Anti-Gun Fanatics who run around infringing on peoples rights taking all kinds of action that has zero effect on violent crimes.


    American Politics at it`s finest. If you do a stupid thing often enough it becomes smart! More and more gun regulation, and yet crime doesn`t go down. So the Anti-Gun morons would have us pass even more regulations. `Cause if you do something wrong often enough it becomes right!
  14. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:58 am
    Gerry, please reread what i wrote. If they arent banned, NOTHING can be done. If they are banned, then theres a whole host of things that can be done along with using other laws.
  15. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 9:59 am
    The problem with guys like this is he is preaching to the choir when he needs to be persuasive and aiming his message at the reasonable masses.

    It`s not persuasive when your argument is interspersed with "f*cking democrats." Just stick to the facts.

    For example, if you are trying to make an argument that, somehow, gun control is bad, maybe don`t shoot off 30 rounds in full auto? KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.

    I know my guns, ok? But you aren`t trying to persuade me, you are trying to persuade my mom. And you know what will scare my mom?

    A redneck talking crap about democrats while firing off his full auto rifle while arguing there is no reason he shouldn`t have one.
  16. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6275 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:02 am
    tedgp-"They were banned yes, and bush unbanned them."

    No, he didn`t. Your ignorance is astounding.

    tedgp-"Since they got unbanned"

    They never were. Your ignorance is astounding.

    tedgp-"they were used in a ton of murders"

    No, they weren`t. Your ignorance is astounding.

    tedgp-"when they are considered banned"

    They still are. Your ignorance is astounding.


    So, let`s sum up your argument: Your ignorance is astounding.
  17. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:06 am

    The guns are responsible for gun violence.
    Pencils are responsible for misspelled words.
    Cars are responsible for drunk driving.
    Knives are responsible for kids who cut themselves.
    The Ink is responsible for bad tattoos.

  18. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:09 am

    "If they arent banned, NOTHING can be done"
    Ted, I think we have a cultural difference. I don`t know how they do it in Europe, but over here in the USA killing people is already a crime so banning stuff & making more laws won`t make it more of a crime.
  19. Profile photo of Matwix_2004
    Matwix_2004 Male 18-29
    2551 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:15 am
    Kegomatix - I didn`t. Well, I knew the difference between semi/fully automatic.
  20. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:20 am
    What`s wrong with taking peoples names and fingerprints when you want to have a gun? If you are going to use it legally, there should be no reason not to.. Right?
  21. Profile photo of drifter2000
    drifter2000 Male 30-39
    12 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:24 am
    oooh sure. i see his version of "sporting rifle" all the time while out hunting.
  22. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:27 am
    Don`t know what kind of brainbug you gun-nuts have caught to make you think more guns is the answer.

    Zero guns in the world is the only answer but you rather die before that..
  23. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:30 am
    Since it only takes one shot to seriously injure/kill someone, the real issue isn`t about assault vs semi-auto, it`s about controlling the sale. I would expect guns to be as difficult to gain access to as a drivers` license in Los Angeles, which is to say not hard at all.

    But, you don`t need any license or previous training to buy a gun. Plus, you don`t need to register your guns, especially when you do a "private sale", to other individuals.

    What suks is that we`re most likely going to see a restriction, not on guns, but on ammo. So it`s the people who actually use guns as tools, not just as toys, that will be most affected
  24. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2383 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:33 am
    Liberals are full of opinion and empty of logic.
  25. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:34 am
    "Guns don`t kill people, people kill people" isn`t a fair argument.

    Nobody is trying to shift the blame onto the guns. They`re saying "if you have incredibly deadly models of guns available to people, it will be easier for them to kill one another when they get the urge to try. Then they end up killing 30 people in a spree, instead of 3.

    "Criminals are criminals, they`ll get the guns anyway"

    But it will be much harder, when they`re not readily available at local stores. Meaning that petty thieves without connections can`t go and pull a gun because they`re desperate, and blow someone`s head off.

    "We need them to overthrow state tyranny"

    Oh, and I`m sure the army is quaking in their boots, anticipating the day we shoot down their drones with our "militia".

    I`m not in favor of removing guns entirely, I just think there are serious flaws in argumentative logic here.
  26. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:37 am

    "If you are going to use it legally, there should be no reason not to.. Right?"
    @ CreamK - The old "you have nothing to fear from the government" mentality. You won`t mind having your home searched if you have nothing to hide. You won`t mind having police stop you on the street and do a random search of your pockets if you have nothing to hide...right?

    Well, I DO mind.
  27. Profile photo of Wibble4321
    Wibble4321 Male 40-49
    417 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:42 am
    A ten round magazine would take longer to change than was depicted there I am thinking since you would not be able to tape 10 round mags in the same way you can 30 round mags. He would have to drop the first mag and load a second mag taking his eye off the target and giving someone a possibility to find cover or intervene in the situation.

    The question should be - what possible, conceivable, out there excuse is there to ever need more than ten rounds in a magazine? Fending off an entire herd of stampeding elk? Makes no sense to me why a `sporting` shooter requires more than a few rounds available unless they are an epically poor shot...
  28. Profile photo of Wibble4321
    Wibble4321 Male 40-49
    417 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:45 am
    @Gerry1of1 - people seem ok that you should have a licence (and indeed pass a test) to drive a motor vehicle on the highway. It isn`t because of state interference it is because we all live in highly complex, diverse and frankly over-crowded circumstances and we need rules to help society get along without inadvertently (or deliberately) killing chunks if itself off.
  29. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    508 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:56 am
    Reminds me of a quote by Jon Stewart that always stuck with me; "Most of us don’t really need clarification on that whole ‘Thou shalt not kill’ thing. And for the ones that do, clarification never seems specific enough… What happens is we basically end up enforcing laws and forcing everyone to live by rules that only attempt to prevent the last thing that was done by the least controllable among us. It doesn’t have to be this way. We must not give into fear. We must empower our better judgment to create a society where violent rhetoric is frowned upon — not because it drives the unbalanced to action, but because it’s inherently wrong in and of itself."
  30. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:57 am
    "Oh, and I`m sure the army is quaking in their boots" isn`t a fair argument either.

    For starters, historical precedence suggests that a police force would be the aggressor against the people - not the military. Since none of our police forces are equipped with tanks, missles, bombers, etc. it is a level playing field.

    Also, the Constitution prohibits the use of military assets against civilians (although NDAA, signed by Obama, someone contradicts this).

    Also, as someone very close to many members of the military, I am 100% confident that our service men and women would not participate.

    Well, I DO mind.
    Agreed. In the US, we have the right to be secure in our persons and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. The examples given are unreasonable.

  31. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:01 am
    @wibble

    A ten round magazine would take longer to change than was depicted
    It isn`t. A reasonably skilled shooter can change magazines without a significant change in firing tempo.

    people seem ok that you should have a licence (and indeed pass a test) to drive a motor vehicle on the highway
    There is a nuance that allows this to be permissible - roadways are publicly funded. To drive on them, one must use public goods; therefore, the public (government) has the right to regulate it.

    In addition, these laws are passed and enforced by the states, not the federal government. Only the states have the Constitutional authority to pass such measures.
  32. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:16 am
    All i know is we have gun control here in Canada and it never stopped a mass murder to happen
  33. Profile photo of Wibble4321
    Wibble4321 Male 40-49
    417 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:17 am
    @Humanaction "It isn`t. A reasonably skilled shooter can change magazines without a significant change in firing tempo."

    As I genuinely don`t know is there any view that recent or major perpetrators would be so skilled and practised to be able to do that under pressure during a shooting spree? It would seem that the choice and number of weapons used typically appear to selected to mitigate poor gun skills. Holmes appears to have only purchased his weapons in a relatively short run up to the shooting and purchased 100 round drum magazines, multiple weapons etc. to presumably compensate for a low expectation of accuracy or to inflict maximum number of casualties?
  34. Profile photo of dbss
    dbss Male 30-39
    32 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:19 am
    they just want to ban cool looking guns
  35. Profile photo of MacGuffin
    MacGuffin Female 30-39
    2602 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:21 am

    The media`s telling you `assault weapons` need to be banned for safety. Problem is, assault rifles were banned in 1986.

    I see what you did there. You assumed that I gave a shyt about such minutiae. It`s like when your politicians try to explain the `distinction` between waterboarding and torture. I`m looking forward to seeing that testimony at Nuremberg II. :)
  36. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:22 am
    Here is a fun example of how American political parties do not have consistent ideologies, and how when people make political statements they sometimes fail to see their own hypocrisy.

    So conservatives (generally) will oppose gun licensing / registration because of some intangible fear that the government will compile a list and raid their homes while they sleep. Hey, it happened under Hitler, right?

    But without blinking they will advocate for voter ID laws, saying its the only way to ensure the integrity of the voting process. However they completely ignore the history of (ahem) government sponsored racial oppression inherent in poll-tax requirements, land ownership requirements, and other impediments to the franchise put in place specifically to deny blacks the right to vote.

    Just saying, everyone fears the gov`t when it`s run by the other guys.
  37. Profile photo of chimmeychang
    chimmeychang Male 30-39
    685 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:27 am
    i don`t see the problem with having to fill out paperwork to own a gun, and checking to see if you have felonies and history of mental illness seem like a logical thing to do. the bottom line is this though, other people have access to your guns, kids are sneaky, and if they want to go on a murder suicide rampage, i don`t think breaking a lock box is really going to slow them down much. I don`t know how i feel about guns being banned, i am eventually going to get my permit to carry if it is still legal. the best way to deter criminals from these things is to train and arm citizens assuming guns are legal.
  38. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:31 am
    "There is a nuance that allows this to be permissible - roadways are publicly funded. To drive on them, one must use public goods; therefore, the public (government) has the right to regulate it. "

    - Yes, and in order to get the car out of the dealership, you need to drive on public roads, and therefore need a license. If you take a gun out of a gun dealership, you will most likely need to take it into a public space. If you`re going a gun and never take it out of your house, then yeah, you shouldn`t need a license.
  39. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6275 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:31 am
    CreamK-"Zero guns in the world is the only answer"

    Okay, but how do you plan on getting a world with zero guns? It`s not possible? You can`t un-invent the firearm or gunpowder.

    wibble4321-"people seem ok that you should have a licence (and indeed pass a test) to drive a motor vehicle on the highway."

    Yes, a contraption that is made up of thousands of parts, weighs tons, has at least 20 controls and requires a publicly funded infrastructure in order to use is comparible with a firearm made up of a dozen parts, with maybe 3 controls. Not even remotely parrallel. (and you`re forgetting the 2nd amendment and that you do not require a license if you are driving it somewhere other than on the public infrastructure).

    LOOK!! AN `ASSAULT` BAT!!!
  40. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:32 am
    @wibble

    As I genuinely don`t know is there any view that recent or major perpetrators would be so skilled and practised to be able to do that under pressure during a shooting spree?
    It`s really quite simple. I think someone who has never fired a gun, yet understands the mechanics of the firearm would lose only a few seconds.... Whether or not those few seconds make a difference is up for debate though.

    If the shooter has any significant experience or training, then limited magazine capacity is useless. For instance, a person can drop the magazine when the final round is moved into the chamber and attach a new magazine before firing. In this way, the shooter never gets a lockout situation and has a continuous firing rate.

    The only solution, in my opinion, would be to ban semi-automatic weapons - which I am completely opposed to.
  41. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:39 am
    If you take a gun out of a gun dealership, you will most likely need to take it into a public space.
    That`s crossing a dangerous line, though. With this argument, one could justify any legislation, since we all enter "public space" every day.

    The difference is whether or not we "use" public goods. When we drive, we damage the road. In order to drive, we must buy heavily-subsidized gasoline. In both of these cases, the person is "using" public goods.

    A person walking on the street or sidewalk does not cause damage. This is the same reason that bicycles do not require permits or licenses.
  42. Profile photo of Mikeoxsbiggg
    Mikeoxsbiggg Male 30-39
    1502 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:54 am
    I can see the logic behind what he`s saying. Also, thank you for showing me another cool way to combine magazines for the upcoming zombie apcalypse.
  43. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    "A person walking on the street or sidewalk does not cause damage. This is the same reason that bicycles do not require permits or licenses."

    - Yea, but a bicycle crashing isn`t going to seriously injure other individuals. The govt. doesn`t just regulate cars b/c they use public goods. If you`re using public space, with a car or gun, you are more likely to injure people, and/or cause damage to their property, even if only by accident. That`s also why you need insurance to drive, at least here in Cali.

    Plus, most products in America have some sort of public cost associated with them, but aren`t regulated unless they have the potential to do great harm to the public ( think about beef regulation). And, I`m guessing that there a lot of foreign made gun parts floating around, which would open guns to regulation.
  44. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm
    The govt. doesn`t just regulate cars b/c they use public goods.
    We are saying two different things. You are saying: why does the government regulate cars? I am saying why can the government regulate cars?

    The government has the authority to regulate cars because they "use up" a piece of a public good. This is evidenced by the fact that cars aren`t regulated; rather, driving is. I don`t need a title or license to own a car; I need them to drive the car. Even moreso, I do not need them to drive a car on my own private property.
  45. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    @klaxor

    I should also clarify that I am arguing from a philosophical point based on my own interpretation of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

    Clearly this interpretation is not currently used. As you aptly pointed out, the government regulates beef, cheese, milk... so on and so forth.
  46. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    This is funny, just a couple months back you guys were arguing that the tern Assault Riffle was a made up term by the media. That it is not a real term.
  47. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    Sorry but if you are fast on the trigger and can shoot 30 rounds in 30 seconds it is an assault rifle. Only the police and the military should be allowed to have riffles like the AR-15. I`m fine with all the other guns that are legal. I`m not some kind of gun control freak I just don`t see any practical purpose of having this type of riffle in the hands of civilians. The negative uses far out way the positive.
  48. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    HumanAction - I understand the point that you are trying to make, at least in regards to the legality of Federal Regulations.

    (Of course, interpretation of the Constitution are open to one`s own reasonable interpretations.)

    Like I stated, though guns may state "Made in USA", that could just as well mean "Assembled in US with Chinese parts". I don`t know the extent of laws regarding foreign imports, but I would guess that could be a legal opening. There is also a lack of regulation in interstate (federal jurisdiction) gun sales, which is how many criminals in highly regulated states acquire their weapons.

    Also, "the right to bear arms" doesn`t just refer to guns, but to all weapons, and some of the pro-gun states have some of the strictest knife laws, and the federal govt has restricted the manufacture/sale of ballistic knives, so there MUST be some sort of precedence for the regulation of guns.
  49. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    "`Cause criminals obey laws like that. "

    Here is the problem with that argument. Crimes are specifically defined by the law, yet there are criminals willing to break them. Does that mean it`s pointless to have a law against murder or rape? Is the sole function of laws to punish people for breaking them, or is it to also prevent the crime from occurring.
  50. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    the problem with his logic is that ANYONE can go to a local gun show or over the web and buy the parts necessary to turn his "sport rifle" into an assault rifle. doing this requires no additional background checks or age restrictions. they are made for full/burst auto and it takes no additional modifications on the actual gun. i know a guy i work with that makes these guns and he was even able to buy a grenade launcher for his "sport rifle". all he had to do was tell them it was for flairs.we need these guns taken away. they serve no real purpose besides human death.
  51. Profile photo of indisguise
    indisguise Female 40-49
    267 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Ok, so Adam Lanza didn`t have an assault rifle - he still somehow managed to kill 20 kids and 6 adults in roughly 10 minutes using his mothers clearly harmless `sporting rifle`. I don`t know about the rest of you, but I feel sooo much safer knowing that this whack job and his equally questionable mother were heavily armed `just in case` society collapsed. Who knew elementary school kids were such a threat?
  52. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    Does anyone remember Kip Kinkel? He was a school shooter in Oregon in 1998. He used a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and got off 50 shots. When he tried to reload, several students, including one who was wounded, attacked him and managed to subdue him. Now imagine if he`d had a 100 round magazine.
  53. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6275 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    jops360-"was even able to buy a grenade launcher for his "sport rifle". all he had to do was tell them it was for flairs."

    Do you KNOW the difference between a tube that will handle grenades and one that will handle flares?

    There isn`t any.

    Btw...THIS is a `flare`:
    \

    And THIS is a `flair`:


    This difference is significant.
  54. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 3:12 pm
    @HumanAction- You forget the power of propaganda. Say a group of citizens end up in an armed conflict with the government over a rights issue.

    The government will brand them "domestic terrorists" and call in the national guard or whatever else they deem "necessary." They will not allow themselves to be overthrown, regardless of the legal restraints on their action. We`re dealing professional loophole finders here.
  55. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3909 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    @jops360 - There is a difference between a launcher for a flare and a grenade. They`re similar but your friend didn`t buy a grenade launcher.

    A grenade launcher (M203) has 40mm barrel that is rifled and fires 40mm grenades.

    There are 37mm launchers similar to an M203 but the barrel is smaller (-3mm) and not rifled, so good luck trying to chamber and shoot a 40mm HE round out of it.
  56. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3909 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 3:41 pm
    Oh, and good luck trying to get your hands on any rounds for that 37mm launcher that are classified as anti-personnel.
  57. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 3:50 pm
  58. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    Here`s a question I haven`t seen. Besides a firing range, going on a killing spree/robbery or some kind of Militia situation what would a civilian use an AR-15 with 30+ rounds for? The only thing in the wild I could see it used for is for protecting yourself from a polar bear. Isn`t it overkill for other animals? Also would you be fine with limiting the magazines to 6 rounds with a buy back program where you can trade your large magazines for smaller ones?
  59. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    @goaliejerry
    "So conservatives (generally) will oppose gun licensing / registration because of some intangible fear that the government will compile a list and raid their homes while they sleep. Hey, it happened under Hitler, right? "

    Actually it has happened in the US to a US citizen named Randy Weaver in August of 1992. His wife and a 14 year old boy were murdered by an FBI sniper.

    If you are unfamiliar with the story here it is:
    Randy Weaver - Ruby Ridge
  60. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    markust123, I understand what you`re saying there, but I don`t think a mass killer is really interested in a buy-back program. All the regulations and restrictions are aimed at "Stopping these senseless tragedies" and yet none of them ever help `cause they only restrict people who would not do that.
  61. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:27 pm
    So now we have a ban that creates an inconvenience for many, and does too little to curb the level violence in our country.

    Besides a firing range, going on a killing spree/robbery or some kind of Militia situation what would a civilian use an AR-15 with 30+ rounds for?

    Seriously, what is so wrong with letting people burn rounds at the gun range anyways?
  62. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:39 pm
    "I understand what you`re saying there, but I don`t think a mass killer is really interested in a buy-back program. All the regulations and restrictions are aimed at "Stopping these senseless tragedies" and yet none of them ever help `cause they only restrict people who would not do that."

    A boy could be up in the mountains or in the woods practicing shooting and gets caught in the act. They would have their large magazines confiscated and a search warrant would be issued on their house. Or they could get pulled over and an officer could find the large magazines. Every little bit helps.
  63. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:41 pm
    "Seriously, what is so wrong with letting people burn rounds at the gun range anyways?"

    Go pick up the latest People magazine and burn those little six and seven year old faces into your memory. If you are so into firing off large amounts of rounds join the service or become a police officer. You are at the right age.
  64. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:44 pm
    Go pick up the latest People magazine and burn those little six and seven year old faces into your memory

    Appeal to emotion duly noted.
  65. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    They would have their large magazines confiscated and a search warrant would be issued on their house. Or they could get pulled over and an officer could find the large magazines.

    So a little boy gets harassed by police for doing nothing wrong, that`s great.
  66. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    "Appeal to emotion duly noted."

    No, I wanted you to get a good look at reality.
  67. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    "So a little boy gets harassed by police for doing nothing wrong, that`s great."

    He would be doing something wrong. He would be in possession of a illegal magazine larger than 6 rounds. Why do a lot of gun owners blame everyone and everything for the shootings but never want to even think about the possibilities of looking at their own world as part of the cause? And I say part because the mental health industry needs a serious revamp in the US.
  68. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:01 pm
    No, I wanted you to get a good look at reality.

    Well lets see, reality also shows that 99.999+% of people aren`t violent psychopaths, and despite horrible tragedies like Sandy Hook schools still manage to be safest place for kids any given day. So everyone must accept the fact there is a extremely tiny existential risk that they will die each day.

    He would be doing something wrong.

    No he was doing something ILLEGAL, which is not the same as wrong. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is dangerous or wrong. Likewise just because something is dangerous or wrong is not enough to make it illegal.
  69. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    "Well lets see, reality also shows that 99.999+% of people aren`t violent psychopaths, and despite horrible tragedies like Sandy Hook schools still manage to be safest place for kids any given day. So everyone must accept the fact there is a extremely tiny existential risk that they will die each day."

    I 100% agree with you here. That is why I think it is absolutely insane for people to suggest we need to arm our teachers. Bringing guns into a safe environment is not the answer.

    "No he was doing something ILLEGAL, which is not the same as wrong."

    You`re right. I should have said illegal.
  70. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:12 pm
    Seriously should police seriously come busting into my home because I`m developing software that could be malicious?
  71. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:15 pm
    "Seriously should police come busting into my home because I`m developing software that could be malicious?"

    I worked in an Anti-Malware group for four years. If someone is developing software that is malicious I have zero problem with the FBI raiding their house.
  72. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    I should have said illegal

    Which is part of my point, we DO dangerous things everyday. I even handle dangerous materials from time to time. We trust people with explosives everyday to not go planting bombs where they could do serious damage. In an effort to make society safer for everyone you`re simply making the government more of a nuisance rather than genuine institution that protects liberty.
  73. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:18 pm
    Ultimately you`re NOT making society any safer.
  74. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    If someone is developing software that is malicious I have zero problem with the FBI raiding their house.

    I was actually suggesting it would be malicious by accident which does happen, which your Anti-Malware company does a better job protecting people against.
  75. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    "Which is part of my point, we DO dangerous things everyday. I even handle dangerous materials from time to time. We trust people with explosives everyday to not go planting bombs where they could do serious damage. In an effort to make society safer for everyone you`re simply making the government more of a nuisance rather than genuine institution that protects liberty."

    But isn`t it really hard for people to get their hands on explosives now? I don`t see the relevance.
  76. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    "I was actually suggesting it would be malicious by accident which does happen, which your Anti-Malware company does a better job protecting people against."

    I see part of where you are going with this. Malicious by accident is not a crime and our company never would have assisted in that type of situation. But using my scenario possessing a magazine that is larger than 6 rounds would be illegal. All I was suggesting was the idea of limiting the magazines to 6 rounds and letting people keep their semi-automatic riffles. I`m not suggesting taking anyones guns away. I think it would be a good idea for the general public to have that opportunity to tackle a shooter when they are changing magazines. The smaller the magazines the more times they have to swap magazines. That is how it would make a little society safer.
  77. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    MrPeabody, you fail to mention that this "citizen" Randy Weaver was a known friend of the Aryan nation, selling illegal guns and that a US Marshall also died.
  78. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm
    Thanks for talking with me Cajun247. You`ve answered a lot of my questions. I have to run though. New Years Eve is upon us. Have an awesome evening.
  79. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    Here, let me define what should be illegal, and I don`t care what you call it: anything that can automatically or semi-automatically shoot more than 1 round per second.
  80. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 6:00 pm
    I think it would be a good idea for the general public to have that opportunity to tackle a shooter when they are changing magazines

    That would be more of an argument for more licensing, not a flat-out ban. I still wouldn`t wholeheartedly agree with it. I think a better idea is to make owners more responsible for weapons.

    If they own a gun only they have access to that gun.
    Only they possess they key or know the code to the safe they keep it in. Barring that they must keep it on their person at ALL times.

    That`s the idea I came up with after reviewing the investigation into the Sandy Hook shooting. But, again I`m not even sure my idea would do much to curb the level violence.

    In any case have a happy new year.
  81. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    We outlawed drunk driving. We added harsher penalties and stiffer fines even for first time offenders! And yet people still drive drunk. Isn`t all these pie-in-the-sky gun restrictions the same? People that would obey them are not the ones we were worried about to begin with.
  82. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 6:50 pm
    Look. Define them and call them whatever you want. Stop getting into semantics and splitting hairs.

    A semi automatic rifle with a bump stock that turns it into a fully automatic and 100 round magazine drums are legal.

    Does anyone really think that is a good idea?

    http://tinyurl.com/bbmjwpb

    My favorite part: "No license required, ships directly to your door"

    AWESOME!
  83. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33147 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 7:07 pm
    Hey @markust: 1,000,000 abortions in the USA every year! Go look at their pictures. Oh wait, you can`t!
    Spare me your "emotional appeal" which would do absolutely nothing to help anyone EXCEPT politicians....

    Canada had "long rifle registration" for over a decade:
    #1 It cost MANY billions
    #2 It solved or prevented ZERO point ZERO crimes
    #3 It made law abiding citizens criminals because of "typographical errors". Yes, thousands were arrested, tried in court, over a typo.
    #4 Did I mention the part about it not preventing a single crime? Billions upon billions spent in Canada = 10X that for the USA.

    #5 Pistols? Already registered in Canada since 1936... still used in crimes of course.
  84. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33147 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 7:12 pm
    I know! Let`s make "murder" a crime! THAT will stop it from happening!

    @klaxor: So you`re fine with people who YOU disagree with being killed. Gotcha! No further explaination needed.
  85. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 7:28 pm
    "So you`re fine with people who YOU disagree with being killed. Gotcha! No further explaination needed. "
    - I`m not for anyone being killed. What I am against is known criminals, who facilitate further crime, who actively preach ethnic cleansing and mass murder being deified as martyrs.

    Is that really the road that you want to go down?
  86. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 7:46 pm
    @Klaxor
    "MrPeabody, you fail to mention that this "citizen" Randy Weaver was a known friend of the Aryan nation, selling illegal guns and that a US Marshall also died."

    No I did not forget to mention these things, because they are discussed in the story. Read pages 6 and 7 where these issues are discussed. Nonetheless, Nothing you have mentioned warranted what happened to Randy Weaver and his family, or made the government`s actions legal. You can skip to page ~20-21 for the outcomes of the lawsuits, legal opinion etc.
  87. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm
    Why do the "emotional appeal" people never mention the Cologne school massacre?

    In case you didn`t know:

    The Cologne school massacre occurred in a Catholic elementary school located at Volkhovener Weg 209 in the suburb of Volkhoven in Cologne, Germany on June 11, 1964. Walter Seifert, born on June 11, 1922, killed eight students and two teachers.....

    On June 11, the day of his 42nd birthday, Seifert took a self-made flamethrower, lance and mace and entered the schoolyard. After blocking off the main gate with a wooden wedge, he proceeded to kill eight students and two teachers and injure twenty two others, mostly students. He smashed in the windows of the buildings and pointed his flamethrower in the classrooms, setting the classroom on fire, killing nine people. He was then confronted by a teacher, Ursula Kuhr, 24, whom he stabbed with the lance. -- Wikipedia
  88. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 8:22 pm
    I take this guy`s points; the proposed bans really seem to be politically motivated nonsense. Face it, America, there are just too many guns made, sold, and owned in your country for any attempts at registration or limitation to have a real effect on stopping mass shootings and common gun crimes. I have to admit that if I lived in any of a great many places in the US, I`d probably consider owning a handgun. And I`ve never owned any sort of gun. I don`t have an answer for you; I think you guys are in a jam.
  89. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 8:29 pm
    @Klaxor
    What I am against is known criminals, who facilitate further crime, who actively preach ethnic cleansing and mass murder being deified as martyrs.

    If you are referring to Randy Weaver, He was accused of selling two sawed off shotguns, that were shorter than legally permitted, to an Undercover agent. Randy maintains that they were of legal length when he sold them, and were shortened after he sold them. This charge against him was used to try to get him to be an informant against the Ayran Nations, which he refused to do.
    He did not "facilitate further crime"

    He has also maintained that he is a white separatist, not a white supremacist, and is not a member of any group. (views which I do not personally agree with, but are nonetheless by themselves not illegal)

    So stop making crap up, or cite your sources.
  90. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    Does anyone really think that is a good idea?

    What makes it a BAD idea?
  91. Profile photo of securitywyrm
    securitywyrm Male 18-29
    89 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 10:57 pm
    If Americans didn`t have so many guns, they`d be British.
  92. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    December 31, 2012 at 11:56 pm
    Carmium has a very lucid understanding of our predicament.
  93. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 6:14 am

    I think anyone who does not want to own a gun, shouldn`t.
  94. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 8:03 am
    A semi automatic rifle with a bump stock that turns it into a fully automatic and 100 round magazine drums are legal.
    When was the last time one was used in one of these mass murders? I think the answer is never.
  95. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:13 am
    HumanAction

    "When was the last time one was used in one of these mass murders? I think the answer is never."

    So that is how we base legality? What has already been used in a mass murder, and not on trying to prevent it?

    Let me ask you and the rest of the gun guys this:

    If someone walks into a public place that is NOT a "gun free zone" with a rig like this and kills 20 or 30 people, several of which are carrying concealed weapons would that end the gun debate on your side?

    Just curious.
  96. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:26 am
    So that is how we base legality? What has already been used in a mass murder, and not on trying to prevent it?
    If not, then what do we base legality on? I was under the impression it was based on whether or not an action infringes on the rights of another. I don`t understand this fascination and focus on "automatic" weapons (although this is not an automatic weapon).

    You are willing to sacrifice such a simple, insignificant liberty as this because you are afraid - if not for yourself, than at least for your fellow citizen.

    I am not willing to sacrifice any liberties to the government because I am afraid for myself, and my fellow citizen. I am afraid that we look to the government to solve our problems; historical precendence shows that governments should be feared and distrusted multiples more than our fellow citizens.
  97. Profile photo of Ston
    Ston Male 30-39
    198 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:28 am
    Of course, banning something means that criminals won`t use them. You know, because of all those laws criminals follow.
  98. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:30 am
    If someone walks into a public place that is NOT a "gun free zone" with a rig like this and kills 20 or 30 people, several of which are carrying concealed weapons would that end the gun debate on your side?
    No - it doesn`t address the issue. The issue is twofold.

    First, is it "right" to sacrifice a liberty of many people to try and prevent something that may or may not happen? I do not believe so.

    Second, does the federal government have the authority to do so? I, from my interpretations, do not believe so.
  99. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:50 am
    HumanAction

    "(although this is not an automatic weapon)"

    Did you watch the video I posted? Those are automatic weapons. I don`t care what they are technically defined as. I care how they operate.

    "means that criminals won`t use them."

    Criminals? Career criminals will always be able to get illegal arms. Career criminals don`t scare me. They don`t pose any threat to me. Bank robbers, drug dealers, smugglers don`t walk into malls and schools. They tend to only use weapons on other criminals. I`m more worried about suburban kids f.ucked up in the head. THOSE are the people that actually pose a threat to me and my family. THOSE people use legal guns in their shootings.

    "a liberty of many people"

    Why do you think weapons like that are a right and a liberty? The 2nd amendment? I certainly don`t see that in there.
  100. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:57 am
    @HolyGod

    Did you watch the video I posted? Those are automatic weapons.
    No they are not. If you`ve ever had the displeasure of using one of these, you should know that they are wildly inaccurate and cause a ridiculous number of jams. Semi-automatic rifles are not intended to be fired this way.

    Meanwhile, an automatic firearm does not jam as frequently (it`s seriously about every other time you use the stupid thing - at least with an AR) and is much more accurate.

    If these devices were as deadly as you suggest, why do we not see more mass murders featuring them?

    The 2nd amendment? I certainly don`t see that in there.
    DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago also help. As for a liberty, if you can do something, then it is a liberty. Any restriction stating that you may not do something is a restriction of that liberty.
  101. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 10:21 am
    HumanAction

    "Any restriction stating that you may not do something is a restriction of that liberty."

    So by your definition laws against murder restrict my liberty of being bale to kill someone?

    If so then we restrict thousands of liberties. Every law is a restriction of liberty. So why rail so hard against another law? Put that effort into fighting for liberties that don`t occasionally result in 20 dead kindergarteners.

    If you outlaw certain guns then criminals will still have them. But you know what? Adam Lanza`s mother probably wouldn`t have had them. Could he have found them somewhere else? Perhaps. We`ll never know. Maybe in the extra time it took to find some he would have come out of whatever manic break he had to have been suffering to do what he did.

    Less guns will not END gun violence but there is no arguing that the fewer guns there are the harder it is to find one to use in a crime.
  102. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 10:39 am
    I`m more worried about suburban kids f.ucked up in the head. THOSE are the people that actually pose a threat to me and my family. THOSE people use legal guns in their shootings.

    And when those (insane) people cannot obtain guns, they will will resort to flamethrowers (Cologne massacre), IEDs (Columbine), Dynamite (Bath), propane tanks, pipe bombs, Gasoline, Construction equipment, Airplanes or whatever else they can dream up.

    It doesn`t get discussed much, but Harris and Klebold had nearly 100 IEDs, two of them being 20lb propane tank bombs that fortunately did not go off.
  103. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 10:54 am
    Had They not had access to guns they most assuredly would have focused on using the IEDs they had made.

    "The investigation determined that Harris and Klebold placed two 20-lb. propane tank bombs in the cafeteria the morning of April 20. Computer modeling substantiated by field testing indicated that had those two large 20-lb. propane bombs detonated with a cafeteria full of students, most would have been killed or severely injured by the resulting blasts and subsequent fireballs. There were approximately 488 students in the cafeteria at 11:17 a.m. on April 20, the time the bombs were set to detonate. In addition to the casualties caused by the explosions, the computer models demonstrated a strong likelihood of structural damage and partial collapse of the cafeteria and possible library above."
    Source CNN
  104. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 11:13 am
    MrPeabody

    "they will will resort to flamethrowers (Cologne massacre), IEDs (Columbine), Dynamite (Bath), propane tanks, pipe bombs, Gasoline, Construction equipment, Airplanes or whatever else they can dream up."

    Perhaps. Although I think to a certain degree these crazies are playing out fantasies whether it is the matrix or video games. I AM NOT SAYING THOSE THING CAUSE SHOOTINGS. I HATE that excuse. However, I do think they want to play out that fantasy. I don`t think other methods would be as attractive.

    Also, the things you listed are either illegal, or serve a valuable purpose. Sometimes the greater good (cars) outweigh the detriment (car accidents). Guns like the ones I posted video of serve NO GREATER GOOD. Certainly not one that outweighs the harm they pose.
  105. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 11:27 am
    Guns like the ones I posted video of serve NO GREATER GOOD. Certainly not one that outweighs the harm they pose.

    The law does not serve any greater good either as it will simply mean more weapons will be owned illegally, and it won`t decrease the level of violence.
  106. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 11:58 am
    So by your definition laws against murder restrict my liberty of being bale to kill someone?
    Yes, but it is acceptable to restrict a liberty which infringes on the liberties of another. For example, if you kill someone, you have infringed on their liberty (right to life). Therefore, society can and should restrict that liberty.

    However, simply owning a firearm or bump stock does not infringe in the rights of others. Killing someone else with a firearm using that bump stock infringes on their rights; therefore, the act of using that stock to commit a crime should be illegal. It should not be illegal to possess it.
  107. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    MrPeabody - you present a separatist, an individual who wants nothing to do with American society, as a "citizen", knowing full well that when presented with over 20 pages of reading, most people won`t read past page 2 and then skip to the end. Separatist does mean something different than supremacist, I`ll give you that, but Weaver also ran for public office, which cuts away at that argument.

    Of course he will claim he`s not a supremacist in court. But when you have signs that say "White Power Reigns Supreme" , and state the belief that the "African race is full of sinners and mud people"(from your source), you def believe that you are superior. The only reason he wasn`t full-blown supremacist was b/c he believed that the world was going to end.

    Also, the shotguns were shorter b/c he ILLEGALLY sawed them off. And in his defense, Randy stated that he didn`t saw the shotguns, not b/c it was illegal, but b/c he thought the guy was an agent.
  108. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    Less guns will not END gun violence but there is no arguing that the fewer guns there are the harder it is to find one to use in a crime.
    This logic is purposefully misleading. Imagine if we banned baseball bats. Do you suppose that baseball bat-related crime would drop? Of course it would.

    Therefore, it stands to reason that removing firearms from society would result in less misuse of those firearms. This logic does nothing to defeat the arguments at hand:

    First, it is argued and statistically supported that an increased saturation of firearms in the United States results in a drop of total violent crime; there are several cases that reinforce this.

    Second, is it morally justified to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions of people in an attempt to curb gun violence? About 20k are killed each year will guns (I`ve removed suicides) of roughly 300m citizens.
  109. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    In reality, here is what the argument comes down to:

    All of the pro-gun control advocates are trying to protect society from the individual. On the other hand, the anti-gun control advocates are trying to protect the individual from society.

    I cannot think of a more fundamental reason for these opinions. Perhaps one of you has a better explanation?
  110. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    HumanAction

    "However, simply owning a firearm or bump stock does not infringe in the rights of others... It should not be illegal to possess it."

    By that rationale I should be able to own a dirty bomb. Or a canister of nerve gas. Or a missile array in my back yard.

    So that means those things should all be legal for a private citizen to own in your opinion?
  111. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    Also, the stated purpose of the weapons were that they were to be sold to urban black youth gangs so that they may commit crime and kill other black youths. Randy Weaver sold weapons knowing full well that they were to be used for criminal actions, than in itself is a criminal act.( your source)

    Like I said, I am not for just killing other people, regardless. I have been around neo-nazi`s before, and if they leave me alone and I leave them alone, fine,

    but if you are going to canonize a criminal white separatist supremacist, then you have to be ready to do so for EVERY urban black, hispanic and asian youth who has killed a cop, and killed by a cop, b/c they have been worse victims of a system that has been against them since its inception.

    Since you bring up the Randy Weaver case in a conversation about gun control, then I`m guessing that isn`t your intention.
  112. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:13 pm
    I think to a certain degree these crazies are playing out fantasies whether it is the matrix or video games. I AM NOT SAYING THOSE THING CAUSE SHOOTINGS. I HATE that excuse. However, I do think they want to play out that fantasy.

    Bath Massacre -- 1927
    Cologne school massacre -- 1964

    Please explain what Matrix, video game fantasies where responsible for these two mass killings?

    I don`t think other methods would be as attractive.
    They would be if guns were not available, and with time these attacks would be much deadlier.
    If Harris and Klebold had focused on IEDs, the casualties could have been somewhere near 40-50 times higher. (15 dead vs 488+ dead)

    Might I also remind you of the sarin gas attacks in gun free Tokyo which killed 13 and injured over a 1000 more people?

    Any way you argue it, more gun laws are not going to stop crazy people who are determined to commit mass murder.
  113. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    "I am not willing to sacrifice any liberties to the government because I am afraid for myself, and my fellow citizen."

    - We have already sacrificed many personal liberties by being part of a society, and have done-so for a reason.

    Also, for those who say that laws don`t stop crime...they do. Laws increase the risk (jail time, fines) and when those risks outweigh the rewards of a crime, people will stop to think twice about committing said crimes. It may not be so effective for "crimes of passion", or "in-the-moment" crimes, but gun trafficking def isn`t a "crime of passion"




  114. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    Laws increase the risk (jail time, fines) and when those risks outweigh the rewards of a crime, people will stop to think twice about committing said crimes.

    We got mandatory minimums for drug users in this country, and there still has been no substantial long term reduction drug use. So at a certain point the expense of the law outweighs the benefits to the taxpayer.

    Gun rights are heavily restricted in Mexico and yet many Mexicans own their firearms illegally. So no the law does not guarantee results like you think it does.
  115. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    @Klaxor
    He is a citizen no matter what his beliefs or even criminal actions. I do not agree with his views or actions, but the discussion started with Government abuse of power, the loss of citizen`s lives, and the targeting of citizens based on their views and gun ownership as happened in Nazi Germany.

    Randy weaver is a case where citizens wrongly lost their lives because of Government abuse of power. Randy Weaver could have been arrested for his criminal actions, but was targeted by the Government instead.

    And I`m sorry that you believe that anyone`s rights and citizenship should be infringed upon because you can not read 20 pages. But if you can`t focus long enough to read the 20 pages, then maybe you should not argue the issue.
  116. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    Cajun247

    "Gun rights are heavily restricted in Mexico and yet many Mexicans own their firearms illegally. So no the law does not guarantee results like you think it does."

    Criminals in mexico have guns. While there are innocent bystanders, the majority of gun violence is criminals shooting criminals.

    You know who doesn`t have guns? Rich middle aged women with mentally unbalanced kids.

    How many school and mall shootings does Mexico have?
  117. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    How many school and mall shootings does Mexico have?

    So we should be more worried about school and mass shootings rather than the overall level of violence in our country? How myopic

    Rich middle aged women with mentally unbalanced kids.

    What about rich middle aged women who don`t have mentally unbalanced kids? You seriously want to disarm them as well?

    Criminals in mexico have guns

    Too many of them are criminals simply because they own guns Mexico City forbids them to own.
  118. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    MrPeabody - you are once again misconstruing the facts. I did read the 22 pages. That`s how I was able to find my evidence in your source.

    Randy Weaver was to be arrested, but he didn`t believe in the govt., acting on societies behalf, to arrest him for committing a crime that was detrimental to said society, and would facilitate more crime. I don`t believe that the govt did everything correctly, but like I said, the issue goes both ways, and you are trying to dismiss Weavers own actions which led up to the incident.

    Also, bringing up the Nazi`s is a faulty sensationalist argument form someone who doesn`t know history. The Nazi`s didn`t enact gun control laws until well into the war. The Weimar Republic imposed certain gun control laws to ensure that paramilitaries like the Nazi`s wouldn`t gain them. Hitler actually imposed looser gun laws.
  119. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    imposed certain gun control laws to ensure that paramilitaries like the Nazi`s wouldn`t gain them

    Well now we know how well that worked out.
  120. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    "Too many of them are criminals simply because they own guns Mexico City forbids them to own."

    - Yes, but where do they get those guns? From us. Gun restrictions/laws make the gun dealers think twice, and make them easier to apprehend, and thereby make access of those guns to criminals with nothing to lose more difficult.

    As for minimum sentence drug laws, it`s obvious the reward outweighs the risk for these individuals. The ready supply and price of drugs also plays a huge role.
  121. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    "Well now we know how well that worked out."

    - HItler didn`t gain power through the military, but through a willing populace that only thought about themselves and was willing to ignore the effect of their actions on others, on a personal and global scale. Sound familiar?
  122. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm
    thereby make access of those guns to criminals with nothing to lose more difficult.

    So it still doesn`t reduce the overall level of violence and now bars otherwise law-abiding citizens owning guns, job well done.

    As for the Nazis, gun control measures barring Jews from ownership of weapons were put in place in 1938. This is followed by the Holocaust started in 1939.
  123. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 2:17 pm
    Guns like the ones I posted video of serve NO GREATER GOOD. Certainly not one that outweighs the harm they pose.

    The law does not serve any greater good either as it will simply mean more weapons will be owned illegally, and it won`t decrease the level of violence.
  124. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 2:30 pm
    "As for the Nazis, gun control measures barring Jews from ownership of weapons were put in place in 1938. This is followed by the Holocaust started in 1939."

    - HItler relied on his self-serving society to actually restrict their access to weapons. Gun control doesn`t advocate restriction for a specific group, but in general for ALL citizens. Like I said, Hitler loosened gun restrictions. Also, the Jews did not know about the eventuality of the Holocaust. They would not have put up an armed resistance, any more than the Japanese-Americans who were interned later on in the US.

    Like I said, "The Hitler Argument" is for those who have nothing left to argue, and choose to ignore the real lessons of history.

    Also, I am not for restricting responsible law-abiding citizens from anything, or from banning weapons. The problem is that there is currently no basis for knowing who is responsible and law abiding, which leads to easy access for crimin
  125. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 2:40 pm
    Cajun247

    "So we should be more worried about school and mass shootings rather than the overall level of violence in our country? How myopic "

    Are you asking me if I am more worried about someone shooting a room full of kindergarteners then I am about an armed drug dealer killing another armed drug dealer?

    Ummmm. F.uck yes. You aren`t?

    You become a criminal you accept the risk. That is a choice. I am far less concerned about criminals shooting other criminals than I am about innocent people getting massacred.
  126. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    Cajun247

    "it won`t decrease the level of violence."

    You speak in such absolute certainty.

    Are you telling me that you are 100% sure that if internet gun sales were made illegal and people were only allowed to have a single handgun instead of a stockpile that maybe aurora and newtown wouldn`t have happened?

    If you are SO sure that tighter gun laws don`t prevent mass shootings then how do you explain a lack of this kind of thing in countries with tighter gun laws?
  127. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    You aren`t?

    Looks like we`ve found where we split hairs, I`m just as concerned about both quite frankly.

    You speak in such absolute certainty.

    Look who`s talkin gun law advocate.

    If you are SO sure that tighter gun laws don`t prevent mass shootings then how do you explain a lack of this kind of thing in countries with tighter gun laws?

    There is no benefit if you only reduce the amount of notorious incidents and not the overall level of violence. Britain has strict gun control laws compared to the rest of Europe and suffers among the most amount of violence and crime. Same story with Mexico, strict gun laws and high crime.
  128. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm
    The problem is that there is currently no basis for knowing who is responsible and law abiding,

    Most people (say 99.99+%) aren`t vicious psychopaths who want to gun down a crowd at the first opportunity they get.

    Are you telling me that you are 100% sure that if internet gun sales were made illegal and people were only allowed to have a single handgun instead of a stockpile that maybe aurora and newtown wouldn`t have happened?

    I`m saying it`s an acceptable risk for such liberty.
  129. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    Cajun247

    "I`m just as concerned about both quite frankly."

    You find a dead drug dealer and a dead 5 year old to be equal tragedies? You obviously aren`t a parent then.

    "Look who`s talkin gun law advocate."

    Fewer guns, means less opportunity to get a gun. That is common sense.

    "There is no benefit if you only reduce the amount of notorious incidents and not the overall level of violence."

    I totally disagree. When I watch the Sopranos I don`t feel bad when one mafia guy kills another mafia guy. However when an innocent person gets killed it is sad. You REALLY don`t draw any distinction between criminals and civilians?
  130. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    Cajun247

    "I`m saying it`s an acceptable risk for such liberty."

    Once again you OBVIOUSLY aren`t a parent. A room full of dead kindergarteners is absolutely NOT an acceptable risk in exchange for a liberty nobody needs. Nobody NEEDS to be able to order guns on the internet or at gun shows without background checks. Nobody NEEDS stockpiles of weapons with ridiculous attachments like bump stocks and 100 round barrels.
  131. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 3:54 pm
    Once again you OBVIOUSLY aren`t a parent

    Appeal to authority, I don`t need a baseball bat but I`m not going to go bash my neighbors brains in.

    You find a dead drug dealer and a dead 5 year old to be equal tragedies?

    Both are an opportunity cost.
  132. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    Listen bub, my dear liberal parents are incredibly skeptical about gun control measures like I am. There are also parents who feel it is their duty to teach their kids how to handle weapons.
  133. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    A room full of dead kindergarteners is absolutely NOT an acceptable risk in exchange for a liberty nobody needs

    All of which could`ve been killed by semi-automatic weapons as that recent tragedy demonstrated.
  134. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    Cajun247

    "Listen bub, my dear liberal parents are incredibly skeptical about gun control measures like I am. There are also parents who feel it is their duty to teach their kids how to handle weapons."

    I own a gun. I in no way think guns should be illegal. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and their home. I also understand the tradition of hunting in this country so I am ok with hunting rifles and shotguns.

    However I think bump stocks, large capacity magazines, and semi-auto weapons that are manufactured specifically to be tampered with and turned into automatic weapons should stop being manufactured and bought back.

    I think restrictions on how many guns someone can own is reasonable.

    I support thorough background checks, including screening for mental health for the gun owner and every person living in the household.

    I also think someone should have to provide proof of a gun lock or safe to own a gun.
  135. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6922 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    Cajun247

    Someone can own a machine gun or any other weapon as long as it is kept on property at a licensed range or gun club with sufficient security. That way they can shoot it, practice with it, and have access to it if a militia ever needs to take up arms.

    I don`t see how any of those rules infringe on anybody`s 2nd amendment rights.
  136. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    I don`t see how any of those rules infringe on anybody`s 2nd amendment rights.

    I proposed that gun owners should maintain full control of their weapons at all times. If they keep any weapons in a safe they are not to share the key/code to that safe with anyone else. Barring that they are to keep the weapon on their person at all times. If someone else has your weapon either they stole it you`re supervising. If you sell a weapon you must also agree to relinquish full rights and responsibilities of that weapon to the person selling it to.

    Adam Lanza had unfettered access to her mother`s weapons, which was the mistake.
  137. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2197 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    "However I think bump stocks, large capacity magazines, and semi-auto weapons that are manufactured specifically to be tampered with and turned into automatic weapons should stop being manufactured and bought back."

    Just about any gun can be tampered with to go full auto so I`m not sure what you`re talking about. I agree on the bump stock for sure and any magazine over 30. Serves no purpose really as the gun gets to heavy.

    "I think restrictions on how many guns someone can own is reasonable."

    A person can only shoot 1 gun at any given time. If a person owns 1000 or 1 this doesn`t change.

  138. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2197 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    "I support thorough background checks, including screening for mental health for the gun owner and every person living in the household."

    Every person living in the household? This is ridiculous. Should we also include the extended family and anyone else who may visit the household, not excluding any potential person who may break into a home? Measures like these would essentially just deter someone from owning a gun. The same way that conceal carry permits take forever and a day to process, hopefully preventing someone from obtaining that.

    "I also think someone should have to provide proof of a gun lock or safe to own a gun."

    You can`t buy a gun these days that does`t come with a gun lock.

  139. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    "der der der der der"

    Rebuttal - "der der der der der"

    Counter-rebuttal - "but der der der"

    Counter-refrain rebuttal - "oh but der"

    Closing - "lets a-der to disa-der"

    Closing rebuttal - "no, der."
  140. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm
    TAKE IT TO THE POLLS GENTLEMEN AND LADIES, TAKE IT TO THE POLLS.
  141. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm
    "I think restrictions on how many guns someone can own is reasonable."

    I`ll form a corporation to own my weaponry, form it as a security company. I`ll be the sole stockholder and president. We`ll also have no employees. The corporate address will be my house.

    Do you see why that wouldn`t work?
  142. Profile photo of chance13
    chance13 Male 40-49
    219 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 6:35 pm
    Did outlawing marijuana stem the tide? Did prohibition stop liquor?...and still you think that gun-control will change anything?

    80% of gun crimes are performed with a firearm that is obtained and owned illegally (read the government report at gunfacts.info)...80%...yeah, what the hell it worked so well with the war on drugs...
  143. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 7:23 pm
    Wow... gone for half a day and look at what I miss...

    @HolyGod

    So that means those things should all be legal for a private citizen to own in your opinion?
    From a philosophical standpoint, my answer is yes. Since the simple ownership of a device does not infringe upon the rights of fellow citizens, then I should not regulate or restrict such matters.

    Of course, we fall back onto the argument of economics and practicality. Any such discussion on rampant misuse of missle batteries or dirty bombs is rather meaningless.
  144. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    @klaxor

    Also, for those who say that laws don`t stop crime...they do.
    I am not sure if you are using this as evidence for my statement or against it. Laws certainly reduce crime.

    As I have stated, I believe that laws restricting people from infringing on the rights of others are just.

    Regarding gun control laws, advocatess wish to "injure" individuals (by removing the liberty to own guns and/or accessories) for the "benefit" of society as a whole. Gun control law opponents wish to "benefit" the individual (by preserving that liberty).

    One side believes that it is acceptable to limit the liberties of individuals (liberties that do not infringe on the rights of others) because doing so may hypothetically benefit society. The other side believes that an individuals liberties should be protected from society.
  145. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    "Most people (say 99.99+%) aren`t vicious psychopaths who want to gun down a crowd at the first opportunity they get."

    - No, but most gun crimes don`t involve crowds, but single individuals, and one life taken is bad enough. And believing that 99.99% of people are reasonable adults is like saying that over 60% of the people in jail should go free. Also, just because part of society is just, doesn`t mean that we can do without laws.
  146. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 10:10 pm
    @HumanAction, I`m not sure which statement you are talking about.

    Personally, I don`t want to make guns illegal. There are people out there that use guns as tools, or need guns for protection (not from the zombie apocalypse or Red Dawn invasion, but actual dangers). I can even understand hunting for fun. I don`t think that most of those people would be against registration and licensing laws, which wouldn`t infringe upon their rights to own a gun.

    The main problem is the section of gun owners who like to use the issue of guns as toys and for political grandstanding
  147. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 10:17 pm
    And believing that 99.99% of people are reasonable adults is like saying that over 60% of the people in jail should go free

    But I can trust my neighbor to not hurt other people because they almost certainly understand that there are penalties associated with such acts.

    No, but most gun crimes don`t involve crowds, but single individuals, and one life taken is bad enough

    Put it this way, there are risks that comes from owning a gun and those that come from not owning one. All of which must be up to the individual to assess.

    Also, just because part of society is just, doesn`t mean that we can do without laws.

    Likewise just because some have good intentions does not mean they`ll draft effective and just laws.
  148. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 1, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    "But I can trust my neighbor to not hurt other people because they almost certainly understand that there are penalties associated with such acts. "

    - I don`t know about where you live, but in a major city, almost everyone can be considered your neighbor. When I was younger, I had to pass by a juvenile detention center every day on the way to school. Not all kids in juvy are sociopaths, but the fact that they were in Juvy does say something about the decisions that they are willing to make.

    The problem isn`t in the risk involved owning the gun, but in selling that gun to a criminal, which is practically non-existent, and practically untraceable.

    Also, laws are enacted to protect the basic human rights of the individual from being imposed upon(life liberty pursuit of happiness). In reality, there are very little stopping an individual from buying a gun and killing someone.
  149. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 1:04 am
    In reality, there are very little stopping an individual from buying a gun and killing someone.

    Perhaps but, more gun laws will not guarantee any more significant obstacles.
  150. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14657 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 5:28 am
    I know the difference. They should both be banned.
  151. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6275 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 6:38 am
    klaxor-"Yes, but where do they get those guns?"

    From the Obama Administration.

    goaliejerry-"TAKE IT TO THE POLLS"

    The gun-control crowd will never go for that, as they know they would lose.
  152. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 8:29 am
    @Klaxor
    You said it:
    ...when presented with over 20 pages of reading, most people won`t read past page 2 and then skip to the end.

    I did read the 22 pages.

    and you are trying to dismiss Weavers own actions which led up to the incident.
    No, I have never said Randy Weaver was innocent or justified in his actions. It is you who wants to dismiss the Govt. abuse of power just because Randy Weaver had unpopular views and committed a crime. (Again I do not agree with RW`s views or actions, but I have to say this so you don`t run off on a tangent again.)

    I don`t believe that the govt did everything correctly
    So having a FBI sniper shoot a woman in the head while holding an infant, and shooting a 14 year old boy in the back is not "doing everything correctly"?
  153. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 11:03 am
    mrpeabody- if you want to make an argument about responsibility, then you also have to take into account Weaver`s own responsibility. He did not want to held accountable for the rules of society, yet willing to facilitate harm in that society.

    Like I said, if you want to turn this man into a martyr, then you are going to have to do the same thing with every black, hispanic, asian individual who has shot an officer/ been shot by an officer. Tell my why this wouldn`t be true.

    Also, the situation did come down to a "FBI sniper", not the entire FBI in a gun fight. One individual who had heard that a US Marshall had just died, and shot twice to kill the main individual he deemed responsible, he missed and hit a woman standing behind a door. The FBI allowed the 1st shot, but not the 2nd.

    You misrepresent the facts b/c they sound better, and you know that others wouldn`t agree with you otherwise.
  154. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 11:14 am
    "Perhaps but, more gun laws will not guarantee any more significant obstacles."
    - ATF believes that only about 1% of gun dealers supply 50% of illegal guns. But, they can`t track them down b/c one the one hand, they can only use their 2,000 agents to keep track of close to 80,000 dealers, and gun sellers need to keep no form of paper trail about their guns. The ATF is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year. Also, the rest of the illegal guns come from purchases where a friend buys a gun and gives it to a criminal.

    Why wouldn`t the need for a license and some sort of registration, and renewed gun laws put a serious stop to this?

    Also, the cartels have way more guns than the 2000 sent over by Obama. WAY more.
  155. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    Does full auto really make a difference in the context of a multiple killer? 30 bullets in 5s or 30 bullets in 20s...what difference does it make when slaughtering civilians in a group? Full auto might even save lives in that context, because the killer is more likely to miss and will run out of bullets faster and thus will only be able to kill people in a smaller area.

    I`m not seeing why the distinction between semi-auto and full auto matters in this context. Am I missing something?
  156. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    January 2, 2013 at 10:11 pm
    A handgun for home protection, a rifle for hunting = 2nd amendment is honored. Everything beyond that ... you don`t have rights to jack poo regardless of what the NRA says.
  157. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6275 posts
    January 3, 2013 at 6:19 am
    Runemang-"A handgun for home protection, a rifle for hunting = 2nd amendment is honored."

    And where exactly in the 2nd Amendment did you find that limitation?

    Runemang-"don`t have rights to jack poo regardless of what the NRA says."

    I don`t base my rights on what the NRA says. It`s what the Bill of Rights says that`s important. I suggest you read it, and even more important, comprehend it.

Leave a Reply