Guns have been commonly available in America since colonial times. Mass shootings like these have only been "common" (and they really aren't if you think about it) in the last decade and a half or so. Something other than the availibity of firearms has to be the primary contributing factor. There are several million unregistered assault weapons in the US so banning them will not make this problem go away.
Originally posted by BackFire
You are now trying to alter what you previously implied.
"all of them" except "The exceptions are those I listed." is pretty dang direct, I feel.
Originally posted by BackFire
Would you consider a glock to be a gun that is not intended to kill people?
Which one?
Originally posted by BackFire
Handguns were obviously created with efficient killing in mind. Though your point about ammo is fair enough.
Some handguns were, yes. But I think that list would be too tedious and gray to make.
Originally posted by BackFire
No, not the same with guns. You ignore too many important circumstances in order to pretend this is a valid comparison. Guns are used to kill people, games and movies aren't. Someone could buy a gun because they intend to try and eat it, it doesn't change the purpose of their design.
I feel you do the same: video games and guns are used for entertainment. You're ignoring that. That is a valid comparison. Guns are definitely used primarily for recreation in America. You want to take that away because some use it for bad. Well, cars are used primarily for transportation and entertainment but there are many many more deaths caused by cars than guns: some of those deaths are legally considered a form of murder. Why don't you want to take those away? Your point about guns being designed primarily for the purpose of killing things is not valid as that is not the primary purpose for which they are used.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, assault rifles. That is what I've been speaking of. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
It's okay: we agree about everything, most likely.
Originally posted by BackFire
But those are accidents. Those are based on people making mistakes or misusing the car.
Well, so are 25,000+ gun killings. Some car related deaths are considered murder.
Originally posted by BackFire
If someone kills someone with a gun, they are using the weapon properly.
If someone intends to shoot and kill someone with a gun, it is one of the uses that a gun can be properly used to accomplish. However, not all instances are proper uses.
Originally posted by BackFire
That was the point of a guns creation.
What guns were primarily created for and how they are primarily used now are not quite the same thing.
Originally posted by BackFire
The murder in Newtown wasn't an accident.
I agree.
Originally posted by BackFire
It was someone fulfilling the intent behind the weapon that he was using. The point of a gun like the AR-15 is to kill human beings. That is why it was initially created for the military.
I agree. However, he could have been much much more successful if he created a fert. bomb (I'm at home now, lol!). It does not take long to find out how to make one of those. Those ingredients are not nearly as limited as guns.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, that is really what they do. They do even more than that, too. They also force you to keep your gun in a safe and the ammo in another safe and they make you tell the government where those safes will be in your home. Even back in the 1980's I imagine they had stricter gun laws than we have here, which likely kept deaths lower.
Well, I knew they did some of that such as the unnounced searching the police are allowed (there is no 4th amendment in Japan...or something like it).
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Still not sure what the bias against assault weapons are about. The types of assault weapons you can legally buy do not have a greater destructive potential then handguns.
Depends on the rounds and the gun. The AR-15 cut through them like cheese. Some handgun rounds would not have been able to cut through that teacher and the student.
I think a big part of the concern about assault rifles is their clip size. The AR-15 has a 30 round clip, that's 30 bullets that can be fired non stop as fast as you can pull the trigger.
DDM, we seem to agree on most of the important things, so I'm not going to bother continuing to argue about the rather trivial things like disagreeing on whether a comparison is sound, as doing so would inevitably spiral off topic and take the focus off the more important aspects of the conversation.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think a big part of the concern about assault rifles is their clip size. The AR-15 has a 30 round clip, that's 30 bullets that can be fired non stop as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Well, I'm quite certain that the only time Assault Rifles should be used is in military campaigns and festive gun shooting shows....NOT personally owned.
Blaxican may have arguments against that and I am open because I do like to err on the side of freedom. But, right now, I cannot see a reason for it.
Originally posted by BackFire
DDM, we seem to agree on most of the important things, so I'm not going to bother continuing to argue about the rather trivial things like disagreeing on whether a comparison is sound, as doing so would inevitably spiral off topic and take the focus off the more important aspects of the conversation.
That's big of you. We do agree, just to be random, about 98% about the subject. Like I said, I think you're very level headed about it which is much more than can be said for others. I'll remember this the next argument we get into (which will def happen).
In the VA tech shooting, Seung killed thirty people, wounded 17, and fired a total of 174 rounds. He did all of this in the space of approximately nine minutes, and that includes stopping to reload several times, and backtracking to classrooms he'd already visited.
He didn't have any explosives or assault weapons; the only weapons he had were two standard-issue handguns that you can buy from anywhere.
It's a matter of how far the US is willing to go, it's a statement of intent to ban guns like the AR-15. They have no real use outside of someone wanting to have it because to them it is big and impressive. That is the point. Why should you have the right to own something that is so dangerous if it is ever in the wrong hands? If you want a gun for protection, get one that doesn't fire so many bullets in such a short amount of time. No one, not one person can tell me what use these things have.
It's been interesting coming on here and discussing it with people who live in the U.S. Frankly, I think the vast majority of people in this country think that the mindset that guns are needed, particularly guns like AR-15's, is completely paranoid and insane. So it has been interesting to have a proper discussion.
I'm afraid my mind hasn't been changed though.
Originally posted by Chillmeister
Why should you have the right to own something that is so dangerous if it is ever in the wrong hands?
That is a slippery slope. Those types of arguments have to be avoided.
Originally posted by Chillmeister
I'm afraid my mind hasn't been changed though.
Honestly, I think only one person has advocated Assault Rifles and that person is an armed security guard. Everyone else from the US thinks Assault Rifles have no place in regular citizens hands.
Originally posted by Chillmeister
I don't think it is when the things that's being argued about is a a rapid firing, semi automatic weapon
Your argument applies to cars, planes, heavy machinery, chemicals, and so forth.
Originally posted by juggerman
What if your kitchen knife fell into the wrong hands and was used to murder 67 people?
Then a knife ban would be demanded by the left in the US.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Still not sure what the bias against assault weapons are about. The types of assault weapons you can legally buy do not have a greater destructive potential then handguns.
Because of the media attention. The media goes into a feeding frenzy when a mass shooting occurs. They WANT things like this to happen. They WANT the news to always be bad. They see huge $$$$$ signs everytime it does. Good news doesn't sell.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
In the VA tech shooting, Seung killed thirty people, wounded 17, and fired a total of 174 rounds. He did all of this in the space of approximately nine minutes, and that includes stopping to reload several times, and backtracking to classrooms he'd already visited.He didn't have any explosives or assault weapons; the only weapons he had were two standard-issue handguns that you can buy from anywhere.
Still doesn't take away that if you have two gun-men of equal caliber (haha, get it?), one armed with an AR-15; the other with 2 handguns and both 170 rounds each, the guy with the AR-15 is going to be able to cause more damage at a faster rate, aka DPS.
Seung-Hui Cho probably had faster hand reflexes than the average person due to being Korean and thereby being a Star Craft fanatic. But 174 rounds and 32 kills? That's probably not overly impressive.