Originally posted by Silent Master
He knows that he can't make a valid argument to get rid of semi-auto rifles, so he's trying to shift the burden to the other side.
What bullshit, use your bolt action rifle to dump as many rounds as you can then use a semi-auto rifle that has a magazine of 30 rounds.
The results will be astounding to say the least since I'm sure you can also bump round your gun.
Originally posted by snowdragon
What bullshit, use your bolt action rifle to dump as many rounds as you can then use a semi-auto rifle that has a magazine of 30 rounds.The results will be astounding to say the least since I'm sure you can also bump round your gun.
/\
See, wasn't able to list a valid reason.
Originally posted by darthgooberSo if having a bazooka makes people feel safer we should let that be commercially sold too?
If it makes people feel safer, that's a constructive purpose. If it's fun to take to the gun range to shoot, that's a constructive purpose. If you need to shoot an multiple armed intruders, yes that's also a constructive purpose.
These types of guns make it too easy to slaughter large numbers of innocent people with to be allowed.
so what's that, 2 school shooting this week alone?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/central-michigan-university-shots-fired/index.html
Originally posted by Firefly218
So if having a bazooka makes people feel safer we should let that be commercially sold too?These types of guns make it too easy to slaughter large numbers of innocent people with to be allowed.
But getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the ability to slaughter large numbers of innocent people. No guns were used on 9/11, no guns were used against the federal building in Oklahoma City. Here's the thing, the fact that overall homicides don't decrease when gun control is enacted demonstrates that those who want to kill will still do so, they'll simply find a different method. By that same logic, someone who wants to kill a large number of people will simply find a different way to do so, and there's a fair chance that they'll settle on something that's even more dangerous like an explosive or vehicle.
Originally posted by darthgoober
Actual explosives are fairly dangerous even when they sit idle.But getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the ability to slaughter large numbers of innocent people. No guns were used on 9/11, no guns were used against the federal building in Oklahoma City. Here's the thing, the fact that overall homicides don't decrease when gun control is enacted demonstrates that those who want to kill will still do so, they'll simply find a different method. By that same logic, someone who wants to kill a large number of people will simply find a different way to do so, and there's a fair chance that they'll settle on something that's even more dangerous like an explosive or vehicle.
But semi-auto rifles look scary, isn't that enough?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so what's that, 2 school shooting this week alone?https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/central-michigan-university-shots-fired/index.html
Originally posted by darthgooberThis "overall homicides" take is a common take for people defending civilian access to military weapons that I find absolutely ridiculous. Crime and massacre are different things caused by different factors. Crimes are generally financially motivated, or personal vendetta or something of that ilk. Massacres are terrorism.
Actual explosives are fairly dangerous even when they sit idle.But getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the ability to slaughter large numbers of innocent people. No guns were used on 9/11, no guns were used against the federal building in Oklahoma City. Here's the thing, the fact that overall homicides don't decrease when gun control is enacted demonstrates that those who want to kill will still do so, they'll simply find a different method. By that same logic, someone who wants to kill a large number of people will simply find a different way to do so, and there's a fair chance that they'll settle on something that's even more dangerous like an explosive or vehicle.
When 9/11 happened we implemented regulations and procedures that prevent it from happening again, but doing so hasn't decreased the "overall homicides". That's because 9/11 was not a crime, it was a massacre.
These fuccking weapons are designed for mass death, and when it actually happens all ppl do is become petty and pedantic about the brand of rifle and exactly what the initials stand for. The only people that should have these weapons are soldiers of war, not your neighbor Jim
Originally posted by Silent Master
What mass shootings have been done with a fully automatic weapon?
Does it really matter?
Originally posted by darthgoober
It's not really deflecting to point out what is basically a hypocrisy. What's more, precedent plays a large role in the American legal system. So before anything is ever banned or restricted, it's definitely worth discussing the ways in which the arguments being put forth can apply to other things.
Like I said, do you really think it's sensible to register and license your hands then? I mean lets be reasonable here. You have no reason not to have restrictions on purpose built weapons meant to kill. The same cannot be said for knives, hammers or other tools because those things are not primarily made to kill people, and actually serve a purpose. A gun is designed to project a bullet as a means of offense.
Originally posted by darthgoober
If it makes people feel safer, that's a constructive purpose. If it's fun to take to the gun range to shoot, that's a constructive purpose. If you need to shoot an multiple armed intruders, yes that's also a constructive purpose.
No, that's not a purpose. that is a subjective reason of ownership, not a purpose for said ownership. And you never need that kind of firepower. PLUS, there is always the risk of your intruders also having that kind of firepower in their hands before they break and enter. And they are likely more ready willing and able to use said gun than you are at 3am. Congratulations, your nations current gun laws just murdered you.
Originally posted by Firefly218
A quick google search would tell you that our military innovated during WW2 buddy, the product was the proto semi-automatic. These things were designed for the military
The military also used muskets at one point, using your logic every gun in the world is a military weapon. thus making the term completely worthless.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Since you're talking about fully-automatic weapons, yes.
No, I'm talking about guns in general. It was Surter who directed it specifically to the AK-47.
My original points still stand - "Why do ordinary civilians require forearms? And if they need it, why would license and registration still be an unacceptable barrier?"
These two questions form the core of my argument here. The ease of access to firearms, purpose built devices designed to KILL people, is a large part of the problem with gun violence in my honest, humble opinion.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
No, I'm talking about guns inn general. It was Surter who directed it specifically to the AK-47.My original points still stand - "Why do ordinary civilians require forearms? And if they need it, why would license and registration still be an unacceptable barrier?"
These two questions form the core of my argument here. The ease of access to firearms, purpose built devices designed to KILL people, is a large part of the problem with gun violence in my honest, humble opinion.
I can quote you saying fully automatic multiple times.