*your
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
A guy who knows how to use a knife will stab them in there hearts.
Yeah, I was thinking about that, too. Like...how did he not succeed in killing anyone? Did he have no understanding of anatomy, at all? Oh well...glad he was too stupid to accomplish anything.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Why do yo refuse to own a gun? If someone breaks into your house and starts killing your family you are hopeless
The dumbest thing anyone could do is break into my home and make threats to my family. uhuh
Chuck Norris checks under his bed for me. estahuh
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Too far back- compare how easy it was to get guns in Europe in the early 20th century.(And drugs, for that matter)
If we want to see a reduction of gun violence in America, it won't be as simple as restricting firearms, we have to change the culture, we have to stop listening to groups like the NRA with their outdated philosophy and romantic idea of gun ownership as a sacred American right.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There are multiple purposes. No gun I have used has ever been used to kill a living thing nor was it maintained or adjusted for that purpose: just target shooting. Must people target shoot with their guns.
Let me clarify. I meant the purpose behind their creation. Not why people purchase them. I know many people buy them and never even have intentions of firing them, but that doesn't change why they are made. When a gun is created or enhanced it is does so with the efficiency of killing something in mind.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that's easy to answer: it is never necessary to own anything that does not contribute to your basic needs like food, clothing, shelter. However, my cousin, who lives here in OKC, owns an AR-15 and he loves to target shoot with it (when he can afford the ammo). His defense for home invasion? A 12-gauge. 🙂I own no guns and do not want one in my home until I can either afford a really good gun-safe (not happening because I am still poor) or my children are at least 12.
Then there is no good reason to own this particular gun. A gun being fun to shoot bottles with isn't worth the ease in which this particular gun, and guns like it, can be used to slaughter people.
Not sure if you read this recent report, thought i'd share...
Faced with homeowner wielding gun, burglary suspect calls 911
New, 9:20 a.m.
In a strange flip of events, a burglary suspect called 911 early Tuesday to report that he was being held at gunpoint by a Springtown homeowner and his son.
The homeowner called 911, too, but by then he was in control, holding him at gunpoint and demanding to know what he was doing in his home.
“Just unlucky, I guess,” the man responded, according to a release from the Parker County Sheriff’s Department.
The incident happened around 12:30 a.m. when the homeowner and his wife woke up to find an intruder in the bedroom of their home in the 100 block of Lelon Lane.
The suspect, identified as 41-year-old Christopher Lance Moore of Bedford, left the home and sat in his GMC pickup, parked in the family’s driveway. The homeowner followed him with a pistol, took the suspect’s keys and blocked his getaway with his own vehicle, while his stepson trained a shotgun on Moore, Fox 4 News reports.
“If he gets out of the truck, shoot him in the legs,” James Gerow told his son. “You ain’t gotta kill him; just shoot him in the legs. … If he’d got out, I’d have expected him to shoot him.”
When deputies arrived, both men were on the phone with 911. Deputies asked Moore why he had broken into the home, to which he merely said he had “bad intentions.”
Moore was arrested and charged with burglary of a habitation, and his bail was set at $35,000. His criminal record includes theft and drug charges.
There is actually no such thing as an "assault" rifle in the civilian market. A civilian "assault" firearm is semi-auto. A true assault weapon fires 3 round bursts and is full auto. The only reason for example the AR-15 is classified as an assault weapon is due to its pistol grip. People associate the rifle because it looks like it is military issued. Without proper knowledge on the rifle, it jams very easily.
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon" at all. It just means "scary gun."
An AR-15 is an assault weapon because it was legally declared one (by people who knew so little about guns that it had to be added as a line item because they couldn't come up with a definition for assault weapons that included it). What it is not is an assault rifle, although it was designed for the US military and is the basis of the M16 assault rifle and the M4 assault carbine.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon" at all. It just means "scary gun."An AR-15 is an assault weapon because it was legally declared one (by people who knew so little about guns that it had to be added as a line item because they couldn't come up with a definition for assault weapons that included it). What it is not is an assault rifle, although it was designed for the US military and is the basis of the M16 assault rifle and the M4 assault carbine.
You're just quibbling over semantics.
Why do you need a semiautomatic handgun as a civilian?
A semiautomatic rifle is a semiautomatic pistol with a bigger clip, is more expensive, and harder to sneak around. That's literally the extent of their conventional differences.
I've never understood the hard-on for assault weapons. The deadliest shooting in US history was the VA Tech shooting, and the shooter didn't use a single assault weapon; all he had were two tiny pistols.
I understand the desire for gun-regulation and bans in general, but the notion that assault weapons are more deadly is nonsensical. Handguns are more dangerous than civilian-issue assault weapons due to their portability, imo. They're easier to conceal, easier to traffic and cheaper to buy.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You don't need a semiautomatic rifle if you're a civilian. Period.
So? There are a lot of things we don't need that are completely unrestricted.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're just quibbling over semantics.
It's implications are very relevant, uninformed people are that much easier to sway with rhetoric. The anti-gun crowd (which I think is a fair name) doesn't seem to know anything about guns. The AWB, for example, was written so incompetently that its supporters allowed it to lapse in hopes who writing something less shitty next time (like for example it failed to actually make any of the "assault weapons" on it illegal). As in the anti-gun side of thing literally doesn't know enough about guns to make informed decisions.
As far as what weapons would be could be considered "reasonable" for average citizens, I think that, really, pump-action shotguns are the most logical weapons for defense. They're relatively easy to use, don't have high-penetration which make them good for shooting inside your home (the bukshot won't shoot through the wall and ht your kid, for example) and it's low firing rate and size make it less dangerous in a shooting.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
As far as what weapons would be could be considered "reasonable" for average citizens, I think that, really, pump-action shotguns are the most logical weapons for defense. They're relatively easy to use, don't have high-penetration which make them good for shooting inside your home (the bukshot won't shoot through the wall and ht your kid, for example) and it's low firing rate and size make it less dangerous in a shooting.
All I know and will ever need to know about guns is that they kill people. That is their main purpose.
I couldn't give a shit if you like to go and shoot targets with it. I'm sorry, but your recreational time with a weapon is not worth more to me than the lives of innocent people, nor should it be to anyone.
Treating a debate like this with the attitude of 'the anti gun crowd no nothing about guns' as if someone's just wrongly called dubstep trap music or something, seems hugely irrelevant and frankly disrespectful given the events that have caused this debate to take place. All anyone needs to know about this AR-15 rifle in particular is that in the hands of a twenty year old it took the lives of twenty children and six adults in a few minutes.
Ban all of them, all guns. Melt them all down. Give people two months to voluntarily hand them in, if they don't hand them in and they have a registered gun at their address then fine them and seize it. It would take a long time, a lot of money but it would be the start of a long process to ending the problem of a country supporting its terrifying paranoia on a crutch of firearms. The lengthy process of getting the illegal, unregistered firearms off the streets can then take place.
If you're worried about your house being burgled, get a burglar alarm, or a guard dog. Don't get a gun. This philosophy of keeping safe from harm by causing harm seems like a really damaging one to me.
Originally posted by BackFire
Let me clarify. I meant the purpose behind their creation. Not why people purchase them. I know many people buy them and never even have intentions of firing them, but that doesn't change why they are made. When a gun is created or enhanced it is does so with the efficiency of killing something in mind.
Since the vast majority will be used for things other than killing things...and some are made to be specifically used in professional target shooting events, then, no, you're still wrong. I would agree with you concerning most shotguns, however. Oh, and hunting rifles. I'd say those are made specifically to kill living things. Same with Assault Rifles (most of them). But, no, most guns these days are not made with the purpose of destroying life. You have to get into military grade weapons for that.
Originally posted by BackFire
Then there is no good reason to own this particular gun. A gun being fun to shoot bottles with isn't worth the ease in which this particular gun, and guns like it, can be used to slaughter people.
"good reasons" is subjective. By your logic, there is no good reason to watch movies or play video games. By your logic, there's no good reason to have the components to make fertilizer weapons (I'm at work and can't use certain words...but you obviously know which word I meant instead of weapons)...which certainly have killed quite a few people. Obviously, everything that can be used to significantly harm human life should not be banned.
Cars kill more people than assault rifles in the US. Alcohol kills more people than assault rifles in the US. Start banning those before we ban assault rifles. The deadliest should come first, right?
You can own guns in Japan and the UK but their gun violence rates are MUCH lower than the US. Why? We should be exploring those ideas and concepts rather than banning things.
However, after reading about the shooting in detail, I really cannot justify the use of high powered weapons like assault rifles. From Wikipedia: "Marie Murphy, a teacher's aide who worked with special needs students, shielded 6-year-old Dylan Hockley with her body, trying to protect him from the bullets that killed them both." That is why I am okay with removing those from the equation. What is the justification for armor-piercing rounds and high-powered guns like assault rifles? What about sniper rifles? No justification for those, imo.
Originally posted by Darth Truculent,
There is actually no such thing as an "assault" rifle in the civilian market. A civilian "assault" firearm is semi-auto. A true assault weapon fires 3 round bursts and is full auto. The only reason for example the AR-15 is classified as an assault weapon is due to its pistol grip. People associate the rifle because it looks like it is military issued. Without proper knowledge on the rifle, it jams very easily.
That is not true. It is legal in some states Nevada, Arizona, Texas and maybe a few others to own a fully automatic weapon by obtaining a class 3 federal firearms license. Anyone that can pass a normal background check can obtain it.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
So can cars, let's ban them
The most idiotic, hair brained argument there is. Don't be an idiot and have a little bit of respect for the children that have just been mown down by a guy with an AR-15. Cars have a purpose, they transport us in our every day lives. There are a set of codes of practice you must follow and you must pass a test to get a driving licence. Industry relies on vehicles to transport goods, people rely on cars in order to get to work, losing them would have extremely negative effects on the US economy as a whole and would make a mess of public services, industries, everything.
Please, pray tell, how is that in any way comparable to the banning of a particular kind of firearm that has a high fire rate and, as evidenced by recent events, can take numerous innocent lives in a very short time?