Are there any bigger retards than people who 'draw the line' at assault weapons?

[kevm3]

Going by your logic, why can’t I have access to anthrax, or a cache of plastic explosives? It’s this nihilistic outlook that leaves us as a nation without integrity. When we choose to disavow any and all progress for the sake of convenience speaks volumes of the corrupt and cancerous sentiment of this country.

Do I hate guns? No. I would readily use a weapon to defend my loved ones, even if it meant a stretch in prison. Do I need military grade equipment to defend myself? No, unless I’m facing a whole company or some shyt.

The average citizen can't legally get a military grade gun either because those are automatic. If someone else wants a rifle, they shouldn't be prohibited from getting one. It would have been just as easy to do a mass shooting with a pistol, and in fact may be easier since they are easier to conceal. Once they come for the rifles in the name of 'mass shootings', they will come for the pistols. If we're going to talk about mass killings, no one has done mass killings better than the government on an unarmed populace... to the tune of millions of bodies in a short time period. One only has to look at Pol Pot, Stalin, or Mao Ze Dong.

In fact, criminals can get a hold of switches to turn their pistol automatic...


Criminals don't obey laws and if they are ready to commit a mass shooting, they don't really care about what happens after the fact. 'Gun control' only disarms legal gunowners.

 

[kevm3]

Exactly. Whenever I hear gun control advocates say “but I still support the 2nd amendment” I’m like then you are at least partially co-signing this madness. America’s problem with guns starts with the worship and unwavering support of the 2nd amendment. Raising the required age at purchase to 21, universal background checks, and the outlawing of assault weapons might make a slight change but nothing significant. Be clear, assault weapons make up a small fraction of gun homicides in this country. In 2019, 394 people were killed with assault rifles. 6,395 were killed with handguns. The San Jose massacre a couple years ago was done by a middle aged man who legally purchased his guns, and he did it with handguns. So what then?

They will try to come for the pistols next because they want to completely disarm the populace

 

[skokiaan]

america creates crazy people and no one talks about it.

 

[saturn7]

Can you kill 20 people in 10 seconds with the first one?

I don't know about 10 seconds but they both fire at the same rate and are both semi automatic.

 

[Luke Cage]

I don't know about 10 seconds but they both fire at the same rate and are both semi automatic.

Generally gun laws focus on how many shots per trigger pull and capacity. Not whether or not one is more assaulty than another.

 

[Bolzmark]

They will try to come for the pistols next because they want to completely disarm the populace

That will never happen. You’re talking about Civil War 2. Plus I dont think there are a significant number of people in this country who want a total gun ban. In the coming years we MAY get a raise in age requirement to 21 and universal background checks but I’m skeptical about even that. I don’t see a ban on assault weapons ever.

 

[saturn7]

I was about to congratulate us for having a gun debate without someone resorting to the "i know more about gun semantics than you" argument which never convinces anybody of anything. But nevermind.

Calling them assault rifles is incorrect yes, Also calling them sporting rifles is also bullshyt, but you never here many gun supporters debate the use of that term. A $800 M&P Sport is literally used by no one in competitive shooting. You would lose every match.

At the end of the day it js just a moniker. like calling it a boom stick or a yeet cannon. it's not treated as a genre defining term by the general public and you know this.
the constant complaining about the media's use of the term assault rifle is the most annoying aspect of the entire discussion. People are just being deliberately obtuse because they disagree with each other. Nobody is trying to debate the correct usage of gun terms. set your spell check to autocorrect that word to something you find more appropriate and the gun debate would still continue like before. If anything you should be happy they generalize and use vaque terms when speaking about gun legislation, because that'll just leave more room for loopholes if they actually write the law.

I agree "modern sporting rifle" is another fancy marketing term used to make the rifle seem less dangerous.

You are wrong about AR-15's not being used in sport shooting. They are used for long distance shooting and in 3 gun competitions.

Folks like me nitpicking over semantics and the terms used to describe firearm is valid because the people who love to use the term "assault rifle" don't even have a basic understanding of firearms. They appeal to emotion and not logic. That is a big problem especially when the media does this.

Again they love to focus on features instead of function.

 

[saturn7]

Generally gun laws focus on how many shots per trigger pull and capacity. Not whether or not one is more assaulty than another.

Shots per trigger pull is what makes a weapon more "assaulty".

Semi autos are just that. No need to add extra terms to those weapons that don't apply.

 

[Luke Cage]

I agree "modern sporting rifle" is another fancy marketing term used to make the rifle seem less dangerous.

You are wrong about AR-15's not being used in sport shooting. They are used for long distance shooting and in 3 gun competitions.

Folks like me nitpicking over semantics and the terms used to describe firearm is valid because the people who love to use the term "assault rifle" don't even have a basic understanding of firearms. They appeal to emotion and not logic. That is a big problem especially when the media does this.

Again they love to focus on features instead of function.

I was speaking specifically about the M&P sport. not all AR-15's. Not a single M&P Sport despite it's name "sport" has been used in a 3 gun competition.

 

[Luke Cage]

Shots per trigger pull is what makes a weapon more "assaulty".

Semi autos are just that. No need to add extra terms to those weapons that don't apply.

I'm just pointing out that this endless debate over people calling guns by names you don't approve of is secondary to the actual gun debate.
And if anything serves to protect your gun rights more than anything. I'd rather they ban "assault" weapons than Semi Auto Firearms.
Being more informed about firearms isn't going to change their positions on gunrights.It will just enable them to make Stricker harder to work around laws.

 

[King Jove]

If you're going to make laws that are going to restrict a specific type of firearm, then you better make sure your language is deliberate and precise, and not vague. Because gun manfucaturs will simply find away around any loopholes in your language, and criminals will just buy the "legal" gun that does the same thing, so semantics is very important. You have to focus on the function, not the form. You can't ban a gun because it "looks" scary and allow another gun just because it doesn't look as scary, even though mechanically both guns are the same.

Whoopi got on the view and just focused on just AR-15's while saying you can have your other "yee-haw" guns



those "yee-haw" guns can do the same damage as an AR-15, it just has wooden furntiture instead of scary black furntiture.



The conversations should not be about "assault weapons". or "AR-15's". but semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines if you really want to find a solution.

 

[CoryMack]

Mass shooters choose AR-15's because they can do the most damage in the shortest amount of time. If shooters were using normal hand guns, they would have a greater chance of being restrained earlier in the situation with less damage done. At least in theory.

It’s only in theory. Years ago there was a shooting at Virginia Tech where they said the shooter killed over 30 people and wounded a buncha others with two pistols.

The point is a Black man who’d advocate for no guns in this country has no business talking to anyone about any kinda politics at all and should restrict his convo to the gossip topics, because that’s a Black man with either no knowledge of or respect for history, or one who thinks like a c*nt.

 

[Box Factory]

Way more people are killed with pistols than rifles so banning so-called 'assault weapons', which they are not, is nonsense. Once they ban one, they will come for the other anyways. Canada has those strong gun control laws if you want to live in a society where the legal citizens are unarmed and the government also has the ability to freeze your bank account if you protest its mandates.

Canada has more guns per capita than the USA. You have no idea what you're talking about. I have several friends that own semi auto rifles

The difference is that they can't just buy them at a gun show with no check. They have to have stringent background checks with references that takes time


You're an idiot

 

[WaveMolecules]

It’s access to guns. Period.


Every country has crazy people.

 

[Methuselah]

Did we have soda in the 18th century? No? Then why should we still look to the constitution as an inviolable tract when it’s express purpose was to be shaped by the times we live in. These issues are particular to the current era, and as such should be dealt with in a responsible and impartial manner. It’s just sickening that life is so cheap when it comes at the expense of weapons.

First, yes, we had soda in the 18th century. Second, If we look at the constitution as a document where certain rights can be voided, what protections does it really afford? What else will people ( like these right-wing cacs ) look to void in the future? The times may change in a way that isn’t in our favor. You really believe that no human being should have the right to own a handgun for self-defense?