***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Novice2]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now because if we aren't how is this action going to make our streets safer this year?But I guess passing this ban shows we aren't powerless so yaaaaay us.

Make it a felony to own...maybe a year or two in jail...$10-20K fine for first offenders...cannot re-new license to own any guns for 10 years...can't ever own more than one at a time again...you don't HAVE to turn it in, but you know the risks if you get caught with it.

That's your law. That's not the law that will be put up to vote on. That law does not round up or make illegal any current weapon possessed now.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

I thought there was already a longer waiting period than that in place now.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

Yes, but I don't think it will help much in the case of mass shootings. Don't some states have a waiting period?

Yes some states have waiting periods. I ask because while it may not help much to stop these shootings, it seems pretty reasonable and even if it has a negligible effect it is worth pursuing. I ask because I was discussing these issues with my father, who owns multiple rifles, handguns, and is a member of the NRA, and he has no issues with a ban on "assault" weapons, meaning the high capacity rifles, and he even suggested that he believes there should be a nationwide waiting period. It would be no consequence for him to have to wait 3 days to purchase a weapon.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

I thought there was already a longer waiting period than that in place now.

There are waiting periods in some states and I believe there used to be a nationwide one but that was either replaced or expired over in the late 90s.

 

[timschochet]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

I thought there was already a longer waiting period than that in place now.

Not for private sales.

 

[BigJohn]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Yeah, something like this would be a-okay with me.

 

[ATC1]

Would individuals be against a nationwide waiting period of say 3 days before you can purchase a firearm?

I thought there was already a longer waiting period than that in place now.

Not for private sales.

yup. Private sales is the first area that should be looked at IMO. There are websites designed for setting up meeting points, post pictures and give info to sell guns to people they only talk to on the internet. Craig's list for weapons. Unreal.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why some people keep bringing up a ban on handguns. That is never going to happen. And even the idea of it plays right into the paranoia of the NRA folks.

I was reading Free Republic last night, and they're actually debating over there if Obama might have planned the Newton shootings in order to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I was reading Free Republic last night,

Why do you do this? Between talk radio and web sites like this, you're spending an awful lot of time in the intellectual gutter. The Shark Pool would be better for crying out loud.

 

[MAC_32]

btw, all of the questions without answers in this thread http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=671930 is why I have the opinion that I do when it comes to guns. If fixing the mental health problem were easy that'd be the correct course of action, it's not though. It's going to take a very long time and a lot of money to fix that problem.

 

[timschochet]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

But they do. I proposed this idea right after the Giffords shooting last year and several people here called me an idiot for doing so, starting with Cliff Clavin.

 

[Brony]

I don't know why some people keep bringing up a ban on handguns. That is never going to happen. And even the idea of it plays right into the paranoia of the NRA folks. I was reading Free Republic last night, and they're actually debating over there if Obama might have planned the Newton shootings in order to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Are they drawing up potential British invasion scenarios too?

 

[Novice2]

Gun violence is down? 26 people are dead!!! Mental health is a secondary issue. Guns are the problem and we need to get them off the streets!

CNN.

 

[timschochet]

I was reading Free Republic last night,

Why do you do this? Between talk radio and web sites like this, you're spending an awful lot of time in the intellectual gutter. The Shark Pool would be better for crying out loud.

Masochism I guess.

 

[MAC_32]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now because if we aren't how is this action going to make our streets safer this year?But I guess passing this ban shows we aren't powerless so yaaaaay us.

Make it a felony to own...maybe a year or two in jail...$10-20K fine for first offenders...cannot re-new license to own any guns for 10 years...can't ever own more than one at a time again...you don't HAVE to turn it in, but you know the risks if you get caught with it.

That's your law. That's not the law that will be put up to vote on. That law does not round up or make illegal any current weapon possessed now.

Good lord sir, it's a hypothetical dart being thrown at the board. I don't know what is going to be proposed or what is going to be ratified, but something will be done.

 

[MAC_32]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

But they do. I proposed this idea right after the Giffords shooting last year and several people here called me an idiot for doing so, starting with Cliff Clavin.

I am stunned you isolated that poster. Stunned.They're wrong, and selfish. There is zero reason to need any high powered weapon like an AR. Just asking for trouble.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

One question for the, "no private sale" crowd.

How do you dispose of a gun you no longer want to keep? Forced to resell to a licensed dealer? Unable to give away as gifts or sell to your neighbor?

And I think the, "more safety classes/more training" is smokescreen to not do anything and to say, "No, if someone is a responsible gun owner [like me!], then everything will be just fine.

Many localaties already have programs for disposing of guns (normally phrased as gun amnesty programs so that you can dispose of even illegal guns). I mean, how do you dispose of a refrigerator you no longer want? You call the county or you take it to the local landfill that has a place set aside for appliances.

 

[Novice2]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now because if we aren't how is this action going to make our streets safer this year?But I guess passing this ban shows we aren't powerless so yaaaaay us.

Make it a felony to own...maybe a year or two in jail...$10-20K fine for first offenders...cannot re-new license to own any guns for 10 years...can't ever own more than one at a time again...you don't HAVE to turn it in, but you know the risks if you get caught with it.

That's your law. That's not the law that will be put up to vote on. That law does not round up or make illegal any current weapon possessed now.

Good lord sir, it's a hypothetical dart being thrown at the board. I don't know what is going to be proposed or what is going to be ratified, but something will be done.

Yes something will be done but will it make us safer or stop tragedies like this one from happening again? Shouldn't those who want gun control want gun control that works instead of something that doesn't? The answer to the question is no it will not make you any safer but you got something done so congratulations.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

 

[wikkidpissah]

Instead of debating, i think i'll just post this every dozen or so pgs til it reaches 1000, then give up. That will make me feel i've done my part. I sure hope y'all can get together and figure out precisely how the deck chairs should be aligned on this sinking ship.

A couple of weeks ago, i was about the only killing-machine (handguns & automatics - weapons designed to most furtively & effectively send missiles through human flesh - i dont care if single-shot weapons are ISSUED to each American household in exchange) abolitionist on this board and experience has taught me that i'll likely be the only one again in about a month's time.

It has nothing to do with the guns, actually, it has to do with our national mental health. As civilizations mechanize and populations expand, it becomes ever more difficult to feel personally powerful. The average person's comfort zone shrinks with the loss of each generally-followed rule and further nebulization of what few limits remain.

Control. Where do we find control? Gossip & reality shows that so easily convince us how much better we are than others? Groups with very distinct borders (Packerbackers, Goths, Reps & Dems, Twice-borns) where people who dont think "our" way are excluded and which hold regular celebrations of shared commonness? Passing the pain in the public flow of events to gain small personal revenges.

Or what about this? Down the street, I can lay a few Benjis on a counter and get a machine that, if i wanted to, could mow down everything in my sight. I'd never do it, of course, but I could have ABSOLUTE control in such a moment and even thinking about it squares my world a lil bit, maybe enough. Look at it - those cold, clean, gleaming lines fairly scream "answer". Lift it - out of the case, its surprising weight evokes power and promises that, loaded, it's almost too heavy for anything but immediate and perfect......justice. Y'know? If i had one in my home, i'd feel just enough control to get through my days.

That's why Glocks exist. The inexplicable availability of assault weapons are just an extension, as video games continue to prove, of how high-tolerance is fantasization.

That's why both need to go - when people who lose their tenuous hold on self-control have, right there in a shoebox on a shelf, a way to regain it REAL quick, #### happens. nufced

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Thoughts on banning the US Government from having and using all of the weapons available to it as well? Reasons for and against?

 

[Otis]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now

Yes. Why is this hard to imagine?Dear Citizen: these are now illegal. If you have one, turn it in to your local police precinct in exchange for a tax credit voucher.

 

[Otis]

The president shed many tears over the dead children in Newtown.Where are his tears for all the dead children destroyed in the Middle East as a direct result of actions by his army?

Well this is directly on point and should help the discussion immensely. Glad you finally made it.

 

[RCon]

The president shed many tears over the dead children in Newtown.Where are his tears for all the dead children destroyed in the Middle East as a direct result of actions by his army?

Well this is directly on point and should help the discussion immensely. Glad you finally made it.

Do you really not see the irony in this post? No one in the thread has derailed the discussion more than you.

 

[Otis]

That's what we're getting at. Go ahead and blow up logs in your yard. Have a sweet ### time. I could give a crap about that. It's the part where women and children get killed as a result of your recreational activity that I lose patience.

See, this is the crap that you add in the last part of a very tjhoughtful and appropriate post. You make great points, then add in this bull. You have chosen to focus all your anger towards a part of the equation that, in my opinion, is a much smaller part than say the mental state of the shooter. You can argue that it's a bigger part, and that's fine, but you have pinned the entire thing on the availability of guns, and closing down doesn't let you be receptive to other's arguments.

You're wrong. I'm not saying there are no other factors here. I think it's good that we take another look at mental health and treatment in this country. I think it's good that we reconsider school security. I think it's good that we take whatever lessons we can from this. But I think step 1 is dealing with the weapons. If you take the weapons out of this kid's house, this doesn't go down, or at least doesn't go down the same way at the same time. Might he show up with nunchucks or steak knives? Possibly. But the end result wouldn't be what we had on Friday. That's the point.

 

[Novice2]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now

Yes. Why is this hard to imagine?Dear Citizen: these are now illegal. If you have one, turn it in to your local police precinct in exchange for a tax credit voucher.

Again the law that will be proposed will not make them illegal, so what's the point other than doing something just for the sake of doing something and not feeling powerless?

 

[Otis]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

 

[Otis]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

 

[Otis]

I don't know why some people keep bringing up a ban on handguns. That is never going to happen. And even the idea of it plays right into the paranoia of the NRA folks.

I was reading Free Republic last night,

Of course you were.

 

[Novice2]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

Nice thought process. That is about as logical as senators looking at guns and saying that looks scary and adding it to the first assault weapon ban.Lets just ban something and do it now!

 

[Otis]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

Sure. Let's start with a short one:1. Deadly weapons designed to murder humans and which have been used to massacre dozens of women and small children

I know, crazy right???

 

[Otis]

The president shed many tears over the dead children in Newtown.Where are his tears for all the dead children destroyed in the Middle East as a direct result of actions by his army?

Well this is directly on point and should help the discussion immensely. Glad you finally made it.

Do you really not see the irony in this post? No one in the thread has derailed the discussion more than you.

You're just upset that I'm making sense.

 

[MAC_32]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now because if we aren't how is this action going to make our streets safer this year?But I guess passing this ban shows we aren't powerless so yaaaaay us.

Make it a felony to own...maybe a year or two in jail...$10-20K fine for first offenders...cannot re-new license to own any guns for 10 years...can't ever own more than one at a time again...you don't HAVE to turn it in, but you know the risks if you get caught with it.

That's your law. That's not the law that will be put up to vote on. That law does not round up or make illegal any current weapon possessed now.

Good lord sir, it's a hypothetical dart being thrown at the board. I don't know what is going to be proposed or what is going to be ratified, but something will be done.

Yes something will be done but will it make us safer or stop tragedies like this one from happening again? Shouldn't those who want gun control want gun control that works instead of something that doesn't? The answer to the question is no it will not make you any safer but you got something done so congratulations.

Well, you've already made up your mind and I think you're 100% wrong, so really pointless to continue talking with you about this, yes?

 

[Mr. Chumley]

My heart breaks for those children and their families. I understand the desire to want to do something and I agree but we can't just say ban guns, slap high fives and everybody go home happy. I don't know what the answer is but I do know we can't burry our heads in the sand when it comes to mental illness. I firmly believe this is where we should be focusing most of our energies, unfortunately both side will use this as a rally cry. The left will use it to try to enact stiffer gun control laws that they have wanted for years and the right will "say send us money boy's their coming for our guns again".

There is seemingly one constant in all of these mass killings, mental illness. Yes guns were used the majority of the time but look at the guy in China, he used a knife on those kids, we’ve had cars driven into crowds, and bombs used to blow up buildings. These aren’t acts of sane reasonable people. I know it’s cliché but the saying has merit “guns don’t kill, people do”. We have to do a better job helping and in some cases institutionalizing people that are a danger to themselves and society. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know but I don’t believe infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens is what we should be doing. Taking action just to take action will not make us safer we need to take the right actions.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Lets say a new "assault weapons" bans comes into law. Are we going to round up all thrones out there now

Yes. Why is this hard to imagine?Dear Citizen: these are now illegal. If you have one, turn it in to your local police precinct in exchange for a tax credit voucher.

It's hard to imagine because both prohibition and the war on drugs have been complete failures. There's no reason to think banning guns would fare any better.

 

[RCon]

The president shed many tears over the dead children in Newtown.Where are his tears for all the dead children destroyed in the Middle East as a direct result of actions by his army?

Well this is directly on point and should help the discussion immensely. Glad you finally made it.

Do you really not see the irony in this post? No one in the thread has derailed the discussion more than you.

You're just upset that I'm making sense.

Yes, name calling has long been widely considered the most sensible way to convince others to accept your point of view.Personally, I'd like to have a sensible, rational discussion about this, but you (and many others, but primarily you) make that impossible.

 

[BigJohn]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

 

[ATC1]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

The point being is the focus is on the wrong weapons. Do I think assault weapons should be banned? Yes, but that is not where tighter gun control is needed.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why some people keep bringing up a ban on handguns. That is never going to happen. And even the idea of it plays right into the paranoia of the NRA folks.

I was reading Free Republic last night,

Of course you were.

You're not quite crazy enough for me. I wanted REAL crazy.

 

[Otis]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

Right, but why is that? Is it "cooler" to have 5? Does it save you a lot of time at the shooting range? What makes it better?

 

[Otis]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

The point being is the focus is on the wrong weapons. Do I think assault weapons should be banned? Yes, but that is not where tighter gun control is needed.

I'm not disagreeing, and like I said Great Britain's handgun ban makes a lot of sense.But I also think the complete absurdity of civilians walking around with something like this is a really good example of how out of control this all has gotten. I mean, come on.

 

[shader]

I don't know why some people keep bringing up a ban on handguns. That is never going to happen. And even the idea of it plays right into the paranoia of the NRA folks.

I was reading Free Republic last night,

Of course you were.

You're not quite crazy enough for me. I wanted REAL crazy.

I love reading conspiracy sites. It is wildly fun and entertaining. Above Top Secret is a great site when you are bored.There are already groups of people starting to believe that the whole thing was staged just so that the government could steal guns. It's really amazing what some people believe.

 

[Sammy3469]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

Right, but why is that? Is it "cooler" to have 5? Does it save you a lot of time at the shooting range? What makes it better?

I would have thought 6 would be the number with the history of the revolver.

 

[MAC_32]

Thoughts on banning the US Government from having and using all of the weapons available to it as well? Reasons for and against?

Yes, because the US Govt's use of high powered weaponry is at all relevant to what happened Friday. Nice fishing trip though.

 

[timschochet]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

 

[BigJohn]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

Right, but why is that? Is it "cooler" to have 5? Does it save you a lot of time at the shooting range? What makes it better?

I've never fired an assault rifle in my life. I've shot a shotgun a few times and a handgun once. It was fun, but just not something that stuck with me. I can assume that the rapid firing is the biggest appeal of AR's. It's a pretty easy assumption. If you drop them to single shot guns, they become obcelete. I know that's your goal, but that has no chance of ever happening. Reducing the clip size is the only thing in my mind that cold even make a meaningful dent in these tragedies. I'm only trying to make the suggestions that actually have a chance of happening.

 

[shader]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.

I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.

But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea. But a gun like this:

http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301

Is it legal? If so, why?

I honestly am just inquiring.

Can't judge a gun by it's looks. Yeah it looks real scary. But a lot of scary guns are really piss poor. The term "assault weapon" was introduced by gun control groups to get people to confuse semi-automatic weapons with assault rifles and other fully automatic weapons.

Fully automatic is a machine gun. You hold down the trigger, and it just shoots one bullet after another. Semiautomatic ejects the casing after firing, and loads the next bullet. The shooter has to release the trigger and pull the trigger again to fire another single shot.

So the gun I linked is used for hunting?

yes.

Rephrase:So the gun I linked is used to kill 28 people in 3 minutes?

 

[MAC_32]

My heart breaks for those children and their families. I understand the desire to want to do something and I agree but we can't just say ban guns, slap high fives and everybody go home happy. I don't know what the answer is but I do know we can't burry our heads in the sand when it comes to mental illness. I firmly believe this is where we should be focusing most of our energies, unfortunately both side will use this as a rally cry. The left will use it to try to enact stiffer gun control laws that they have wanted for years and the right will "say send us money boy's their coming for our guns again".There is seemingly one constant in all of these mass killings, mental illness. Yes guns were used the majority of the time but look at the guy in China, he used a knife on those kids, we’ve had cars driven into crowds, and bombs used to blow up buildings. These aren’t acts of sane reasonable people. I know it’s cliché but the saying has merit “guns don’t kill, people do”. We have to do a better job helping and in some cases institutionalizing people that are a danger to themselves and society. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know but I don’t believe infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens is what we should be doing. Taking action just to take action will not make us safer we need to take the right actions.

Mental illness definitely needs to be addressed, but I really think guns does first. Mental illness is of greater concern, but the solution is going to take a lot more time than guns. Knock out the easy hurdle first then focus energy towards the 2nd issue. There's a reason this thread is 32 pages and the mental illness thread hasn't gone to page 2 yet - people don't have answers, just questions.

 

[BigJohn]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

The point being is the focus is on the wrong weapons. Do I think assault weapons should be banned? Yes, but that is not where tighter gun control is needed.

I'm not disagreeing, and like I said Great Britain's handgun ban makes a lot of sense.But I also think the complete absurdity of civilians walking around with something like this is a really good example of how out of control this all has gotten. I mean, come on.

Where are they walking around with these? Detroit?