🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Sithborg]

That's kind of the point. She doesn't need to be a better marksman, as she would be able to get a lot more collateral damage.

 

[ohiostate124]

That's kind of the point. She doesn't need to be a better marksman, as she would be able to get a lot more collateral damage.

Idk, I’ve seen plenty of people get worse scores with the rifle compared to the pistol. Unless we are assuming she had one of this illegal fully automatic rifles in this scenario which I’m doubtful that she could control.

 

[Sithborg]

Accuracy isn't needed when you are shooting into a crowd of people. Also, less need to hit accurately, as the bullets do a lot more damage to what they hit.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Any source on her magically becoming a better marksman with an ar-15?

Isn't the entire point of this conversation that one does not need to be a better marksman with far more ammo, that is far more powerful?

 

[MaceB]

There is literally no reason folks should own an AR-15. It's for killing people in combat situations, not defending yourself.
I do see how it could be a lot of fun to shoot them though. I'm a dude, I get it. So here... let's allow gun ranges to apply for special licenses that allow them to own semi-automatic weapons. That way, folks can still go to the range, rent a badass gun, fire away, blow off some steam, check it back in, and be on their way.

Ammophiles still get to keep their hobby, but no one has to own a lethal mass killing weapon of destruction. Solved.

 

[ohiostate124]

There is literally no reason folks should own an AR-15. It's for killing people in combat situations, not defending yourself.
I do see how it could be a lot of fun to shoot them though. I'm a dude, I get it. So here... let's allow gun ranges to apply for special licenses that allow them to own semi-automatic weapons. That way, folks can still go to the range, rent a badass gun, fire away, blow off some steam, check it back in, and be on their way.

Ammophiles still get to keep their hobby, but no one has to own a lethal mass killing weapon of destruction. Solved.

We should get rid of privately owned cars and require everyone to take public transportation.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

We should get rid of privately owned cars and require everyone to take public transportation.

Why?

 

[ohiostate124]

Why?

It would save more lives than banning 1 specific semiautomatic rifle.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It would save more lives than banning 1 specific semiautomatic rifle.

What practical use is there in owning a semiautomatic rifle as opposed to owning and driving a car?

 

[ohiostate124]

What practical use is there in owning a semiautomatic rifle as opposed to owning and driving a car?

Hunting, self-defense, fighting tyrannical governments, etc.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Hunting, self-defense, fighting tyrannical governments, etc.

Fight any tyrannical governments lately?

Also the car analogy is so silly let me go ahead and stop you.

Cars are not designed to kill people. They are designed to transport people. Improper use of cars results in death. The primary function of guns is to kill. Please don't pull out that idiot line about "guns not killing people". You try to do what that son of a ***** did in Vegas with a knife.

 

[Sithborg]

It would save more lives than banning 1 specific semiautomatic rifle.

I think lil'Marco covered this pretty clearly...



A semi-automatic ban seems sensible.

 

[ohiostate124]

Fight any tyrannical governments lately?

Also the car analogy is so silly let me go ahead and stop you.

Cars are not designed to kill people. They are designed to transport people. Improper use of cars results in death. The primary function of guns is to kill. Please don't pull out that idiot line about "guns not killing people". You try to do what that son of a ***** did in Vegas with a knife.

1. Nope but that’s not the point but I think you know that.

2. It’s not silly if you want to seriously talk about saving lives. (I don’t actually want to ban cars)

3. The primary function of a gun is to kill? Ok?

 

[MaceB]

Hunting, self-defense, fighting tyrannical governments, etc.

No, a semi-automatic weapon isn't suitable for any of that. Too destructive for hunting, too likely to cause unanticipated casualties in self defense, too weak to fight a tyrannical government. A Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle has one purpose - to kill enemy combatants in the field of battle. Not defense, and definitely not hunting. If you shoot a deer with an AR-15, then you aint shooting it to eat it.

 

[Texas Zombie]

No, a semi-automatic weapon isn't suitable for any of that. Too destructive for hunting, too likely to cause unanticipated casualties in self defense, too weak to fight a tyrannical government. A Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle has one purpose - to kill enemy combatants in the field of battle. Not defense, and definitely not hunting. If you shoot a deer with an AR-15, then you aint shooting it to eat it.

Well first off if you’re hunting hogs, then you’re going to use an AR-15.
Second people hunt deer with a bigger round than in an AR-15.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a restriction on purchasing semi automatic firearms. It should be something you have to be licensed to own and show reasonable means of use.

 

[Aximili86]

She didn't even kill anyone she wounded three before shooting herself had she been armed with an AR-15, a high capacity magazine or worse a drum magazinetheir would have been a significant death countcan't disagree with disarming the unstable

She didn't kill anyone only because she was an incompetent ****ty shot. The crazy b*tch apparently fired off 50+ rounds in this thing.

Again, for like the zillionth time, Virginia Tech was pistols. Twice the death count of Parkland.

There's a weird disconnect of logic here. One of these morons with a pistol or couple of pistols, a bunch of extra clips, can wreak absolute havok, provided they know how to use it.

And it'd be insane to call for a nationwide ban on handguns. Yeah, Chicago does it in the city limits, but that'd never happen federally.

 

[MaceB]

Well first off if you’re hunting hogs, then you’re going to use an AR-15.
Second people hunt deer with a bigger round than in an AR-15.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a restriction on purchasing semi automatic firearms. It should be something you have to be licensed to own and show reasonable means of use.

AR-15s leave bullet wounds as big as baseballs. It's entirely impractical to hunt with a weapon that shoots a round a second unless you want your hunt riddled with bullets. I've never heard of dog hunting in the US, but I'm certainly against it, and even then you can shoot dogs with a rifle. You don't use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, and if you do... boo hoo... you're gonna have to do your HOBBY with a different weapon. I will weep for them.

 

[MaceB]

She didn't kill anyone only because she was an incompetent ****ty shot. The crazy b*tch apparently fired off 50+ rounds in this thing.

Again, for like the zillionth time, Virginia Tech was pistols. Twice the death count of Parkland.

There's a weird disconnect of logic here. One of these morons with a pistol or couple of pistols, a bunch of extra clips, can wreak absolute havok, provided they know how to use it.

And it'd be insane to call for a nationwide ban on handguns. Yeah, Chicago does it in the city limits, but that'd never happen federally.

So, because in SOME cases, a person can do a lot of damage with a handgun, that means that Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles that serve no defensive purpose are okay? You're practicing "What-about-ism." "Oh psh, why should we criminalize semi-automatic weapons? Cigarettes kill more people every year." .... Well, because the harms of one have absolutely nothing to do with the the harms of the other.

 

[Texas Zombie]

AR-15s leave bullet wounds as big as baseballs. It's entirely impractical to hunt with a weapon that shoots a round a second unless you want your hunt riddled with bullets. I've never heard of dog hunting in the US, but I'm certainly against it, and even then you can shoot dogs with a rifle. You don't use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, and if you do... boo hoo... you're gonna have to do your HOBBY with a different weapon. I will weep for them.

All good bro, I ain’t too worried about it.

 

[MaceB]

I'm glad you're fine with it. I wasn't really arguing with you. I was bringing up a point of contention, and I guess I'll just reiterate... AR-15s are good for two things: fighting on a field of war, and compensating.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Right on

 

[squeekness]

No, a semi-automatic weapon isn't suitable for any of that. Too destructive for hunting, too likely to cause unanticipated casualties in self defense, too weak to fight a tyrannical government. A Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle has one purpose - to kill enemy combatants in the field of battle. Not defense, and definitely not hunting. If you shoot a deer with an AR-15, then you aint shooting it to eat it.

This.

 

[Aximili86]

that serve no defensive purpose are okay?

According to you, though. And I actually agree, generally most people aren't going to need an AR for home/family defense. Some out on ranches and stuff might though, communities with just a couple cops, slow response times, and dangerous areas - who am I to tell them they're wrong on feeling that way, provided they have no criminal or psych history?

As for the hunting thing, it's the highest selling damn hunting rifle in the US. People use these things to hunt, whether or not you or I deem it necessary. Small animals, no, but an AR series rifle is totally legitimate and reasonable on bigger stuff. I'm not a hunter, but people who are do use them, and in huge numbers. Provided they pass a background check (which I'm for being stricter than they are currently), it's reasonable for them to have them.

This is a "weed out and prevent the people who shouldn't have them" issue, not a "nobody should be able to have them" issue. The interview process Canada apparently does seems to make a lot of sense as a move on this. Not outright bans though.

 

[MaceB]

generally most people aren't going to need an AR for home/family defense. Some out on ranches and stuff might though, communities with just a couple cops, slow response times, and dangerous areas - who am I to tell them they're wrong on feeling that way, provided they have no criminal or psych history?

No, they aren't good for defense even in those cases. What are you suggesting? That a band of 5-10 guys are moving in on your farm from far away, and you can pick them off before they get there? Because in close corners, they aren't suitable for self defense. ESPECIALLY if you have a family. These are weapons that are not afraid of excessive casualties. We should allow AR-15s to exist because in some hypothetical nonsense scenario, they might be needed if you are going up against a gang of dudes? Why are you bending over backwards in favor of people having guns they usually wouldn't need? Look, you can defend your home with a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle. And if that's not enough, you need to call the police.

As for the hunting thing, it's the highest selling damn hunting rifle in the US. People use these things to hunt, whether or not you or I deem it necessary. Small animals, no, but an AR series rifle is totally legitimate and reasonable on bigger stuff. I'm not a hunter, but people who are do use them, and in huge numbers. Provided they pass a background check (which I'm for being stricter than they are currently), it's reasonable for them to have them.

This argument is unreasonable as well. Look, the measure isn't whether some people want to hunt with AR-15... the measure is whether they need to, and they don't. Hunting is a hobby. I don't care if some people like to hunt with it. It's not the best weapon for it; it encourages sloppy spray type shooting, and people use it to kill others. Are you saying that we should not ban assault weapons, because - even though they kill people in mass numbers - some folks like to use them for recreation? Guess what? They're gonna have to change guns. I'm sorry that their play time won't be as good as it was before. Actually, no I'm not. They're gonna have to suck it up.

This is a "weed out and prevent the people who shouldn't have them" issue, not a "nobody should be able to have them" issue. The interview process Canada apparently does seems to make a lot of sense as a move on this. Not outright bans though.

I disagree. The data is in, and the Assault Weapons ban worked incredibly well, and there is no compelling public interest in having them for sale in the private sector. None.

 

[Aximili86]

Again, I agree with you - 90% of cases, an AR's going to be overkill for stopping Captain Stabby Rapeypants.

You and I don't get to decide that for other people, though. If there's no reasonable reason to think they're insane, and their only run-ins with the law are parking tickets or whatever, fine. These are semi-autos, not "military grade assault weapons" or whatever the **** Tapper & Cooper would assert. They're civilian, they're the most frequently used hunting weapon in the U.S., they don't account for anything even remotely close to a majority of gun crime in the country, and mass shootings have happened anyway without them (worse than Parkland).

Again, yeah, hunting's a hobby. Sport shooting's a hobby. There are 5 million of these ****ing ARs in circulation nationwide, and 99.999999%+ of those 5 million never point them at a human being. They get to keep their hobby, let's start critical thinking on a way to weed out the tiny infinitesimal amount of wackadoodle schitzofaces who think blowing school students or mall patrons away sounds like a fun way to spend an afternoon.

New York Times (that bastion of crazy redneck conservatism! ), 2014:


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html



Basically, the 90s-era assault weapons ban didn't do jack, handguns are the lion's share of gun killings, and massacres are on the books without any AR involvement, including 2 of the 5 or so big ones in the public consciousness, Columbine & Virginia Tech. You'll basically achieve "psychos will buy carbines or pistols with a ****load of extra ammo instead". And then we'll be having the same conversation about "carbines & handguns are the nation's scourge!" in 5 years.

All of this is coming from someone who's not even a gun owner, doesn't care to be.

If we're going to be consistent here and say "glocks have gotta go!" too, then great. But since we're not, **** this ignoring-the-gun-statistics-and-act-on-pure-kneejerk-emotion schtick.