ADVERTISEMENT

I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Will it though?
Nobody can tell the future, but stats show that limiting access to automatic and semiautomatic “assault” style guns substantially decreases gun violence and it happens fast. In Australia they did their buy backs and severely limited access to many types of guns- firearm suicides and murders PLUMMETED by well over 1/2 on both stats within just the first few years. Since then, their firearm deaths have stayed low and they have way fewer (if any that would qualify since the buyback in 96?) “mass shootings” than the US.

The stats are very clear on this broadly speaking- other than third-world/ war-torn nations and hot beds of drug war violence like Mexico and Colombia- there is a very clear correlation between the amount of guns a country has relative to their population and the number of firearm murders they experience relative to their population. It is common sense, proven and born out through studying easy to find data- broadly speaking: less guns (ESPECIALLY less automatic/semiautomatic assault style weapons)= less gun violence. This is not a political opinion, it should not be a partisan issue it is just the way things work.

Want a gun for hunting? Sure. You do not need an AR-15 unless you are hunting people who also have a gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harvard Gamecock
"Shall not infringe"... infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

No one is infringing on your right to own a firearm, which is what the 2nd Amedment is all about. Now... your right to own ammo is never mentioned in the 2nd Amendment... that is not a constitutional right as of today. So... I think that could work constitutionally.

That would never fly with the SCOTUS as it is currently comprised. Sure, you may find a federal judge or two along the way to go along with that, and a constitutional terrorist like Breyer may be okay with it, but there are at least six Justices that would grind that nonsense under their heels if it even got that far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddie.B.Cocky
Me: Hey here are a ton of studies saying that these measures work

Them: bUt My GuNs DoNT kILl NOboDY
 
You’re being obtuse if you think removing the fully automatic feature(which is only used when facing imminent death by soldiers) somehow makes it a drastically different product.

The new design for civilians cannot be converted back to automatic per the article I linked. It is a different design and should not be combined in the discussion about AR-15s.

So you are saying a semiautomatic firearm is not drastically different from an automatic firearm? Where in the world do you get that? Got a link to someone else who thinks that? Do you want to be in a war with a semiautomatic rifle vs an automatic rifle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
Its a shame you won’t be able to show us where I said it, isn’t it?
You:
“You’re being obtuse if you think removing the fully automatic feature(which is only used when facing imminent death by soldiers) somehow makes it a drastically different product.”
 
So no other country has the human heart for killing people with guns besides the us ?
What if I told you there are other countries where gun ownership is not illegal that don't have the gun violence issues we have? I can tell you one thing. A very good way to lower gun violence in this country would be to better enforce laws that are already on the books. A lot of gun crimes are perpetrated by people either out on bail or fresh out of jail.
 
Want a gun for hunting? Sure. You do not need an AR-15 unless you are hunting people who also have a gun.

That is your opinion and that opinion is not shared by everyone. Did you know that almost all handguns are semiautomatic? The civilian version of the AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.
 
So saying you don’t do it means others don’t?

Can someone get legally get a gun without a background check through gun show loop hole?

Answer: yes
You said legally get a gun, correct?

So people legally getting guns is a problem for you?

Or because it legally happens at a gun show between individuals is a problem?

Is there an alley loophole or a Walmart parking lot loophole? Gun show loophole is a made up horse crap term that doesn’t truly exist. Individuals can sell guns to each other in many places and it is no loophole.

An individual selling a gun to a person that can’t own it is a crime. but that would be an illegal transaction so there are laws against it right?

Gun show loophole <—- doesn’t exist
 
What if I told you there are other countries where gun ownership is not illegal that don't have the gun violence issues we have? I can tell you one thing. A very good way to lower gun violence in this country would be to better enforce laws that are already on the books. A lot of gun crimes are perpetrated by people either out on bail or fresh out of jail.
Sure tell me that country with less gun violence that is highly developed that has nearly as many guns per person as us
 
The new design for civilians cannot be converted back to automatic per the article I linked. It is a different design and should not be combined in the discussion about AR-15s.

So you are saying a semiautomatic firearm is not drastically different from an automatic firearm? Where in the world do you get that? Got a link to someone else who thinks that? Do you want to be in a war with a semiautomatic rifle vs an automatic rifle?

Yes, you could swap out my M4 with an AR-15 and nothing about my approach to battle would change.

A rifleman only carries 210 rounds on a basic combat load. If you used the fully automatic feature on an M4 you would spend more time reloading than you would actually shooting at the enemy.

Thats why an infantry squad carries two M249 squad automatic weapons which are designed to be used as fully automatic.

As I said, no one actually uses the fully automatic setting on an M4.
 
No offense, but does the outcome of the investigation mean anything in the grand scheme of things?

And do you really think the Founders would embrace a citizenry that could have easy access to weapons of mass destruction? It's a valid question. There needs to be a line.
I don’t know, but it might. Was this a mentally ill guy who snapped, a terrorist act of some sort, or an ordinary crime gone terribly wrong? Should existing laws have prevented him having the weapon in the first place? Right now we don’t know any of that.

As for “weapons of mass destruction”, I’m not sure what you mean. Generally civilians can’t possess things like grenades, anti-tank missiles, flamethrowers, claymore mines, mortars, RPGs or machine guns( generally the ATF definition of “destructive device”), and I don’t think anyone would seriously want their own fighter jet, complete with tactical nuke or 2000lb. laser guided bomb. Originally it was muskets, pistols, swords and bayonets (basically the individual military weapons of the time, and generally until 1934, no one seemed to have an issue with civilians owning the more modern versions of the same (Thompson submachine guns and the BAR were legal for civilian possession and use until then). The semi-auto M1 Garand, the semi-auto M1 Carbine, and the M1A1 (semi-auto-only version of the M14) are all civilian legal, and those are definitely military weapons (actually, the M1A1 with scope, known as the M21, is still in military use as a weapon for Designated Marksmen). If any of those has ever been involved in a mass shooting incident, I am not aware of it. My guess would be the Founders intended for the armed citizen to have whatever the standard individual infantry weapon is. Personally, I don’t have a dog in the “assault rifle" hunt (I personally despise the AR-15/M-16 platform anyway, probably because of negative experience with reliability of the original version). If I needed a combat rifle, I’d feel better with the M1A1 or the old Garand (I can put down accurate fire with that, including reloads, nearly as fast as I can with a clip fed rifle anyway). For home defense, nothing out there beats a 12 Gauge Pump shotgun with 00 buck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
You:
“You’re being obtuse if you think removing the fully automatic feature(which is only used when facing imminent death by soldiers) somehow makes it a drastically different product.”

Hmm. Yeah you’re going to beed to explain how you incorrectly concluded I don’t know the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic.
 
Yes, you could swap out my M4 with an AR-15 and nothing about my approach to battle would change.

A rifleman only carries 210 rounds on a basic combat load. If you used the fully automatic feature on an M4 you would spend more time reloading than you would actually shooting at the enemy.

Thats why an infantry squad carries two M249 squad automatic weapons which are designed to be used as fully automatic.

As I said, no one actually uses the fully automatic setting on an M4.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. However:

What your point with all of this? Is the AR-15 meant for war because it is a rifle? Sorry, I'm not sure why you are mentioning that. There are many weapons that can be used for war. Are we to remove all weapons of war? Is this your point?
 
"Addressing mental health" is such a vague suggestion. It would, of course, require public funding too, which is a non-starter for many. It's a lot of things. We have a lot of lonely people. I still have no idea why someone would need an assault rifle. There is no one solution, but someone should not be able to easily get their hands on an assault rifle when he or she is having a rough day. It is lunacy. Most Americans support reasonable "gun control" measures. Of course, that does not matter when it comes down to it.
Most Americans, including me, have no idea what reasonable "gun control" measures are. It is much like the "fair share" tax fallacy.
 
Ok Mr. 120 guns per person
I read one number wrong because the section to it was murder per capita I forget that other countries can’t possibly measure a gun per person

But use that one oversight to discredit my whole argument that is a genuine discussion tactic for sure
 
I read one number wrong because the section to it was murder per capita I forget that other countries can’t possibly measure a gun per person

But use that one oversight to discredit my whole argument that is a genuine discussion tactic for sure
No it just shows me you back legislation about things that you really don’t understand.
 
You said they’re the same. If I misunderstood, please explain.

If you remove the fully automatic feature of the M4 it just becomes a semi automatic weapon. So that would be implying there is a difference in functionality but not so great to really matter in real life usage.
 
Serious, legal gun owners have the CWP. It's your semi-permanent background check in SC.
Your CWP argument is baseless as it has no impact on long guns.
Why would a man with a couple of rifles even want a CWP?
 
You said legally get a gun, correct?

So people legally getting guns is a problem for you?

Or because it legally happens at a gun show between individuals is a problem?

Is there an alley loophole or a Walmart parking lot loophole? Gun show loophole is a made up horse crap term that doesn’t truly exist. Individuals can sell guns to each other in many places and it is no loophole.

An individual selling a gun to a person that can’t own it is a crime. but that would be an illegal transaction so there are laws against it right?

Gun show loophole <—- doesn’t exist

where did feeble go? No response?
 
If you remove the fully automatic feature of the M4 it just becomes a semi automatic weapon. So that would be implying there is a difference in functionality but not so great to really matter in real life usage.
Oh really? You ever tried to pull a trigger 500 times in a minute?
 
I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. However:

What your point with all of this? Is the AR-15 meant for war because it is a rifle? Sorry, I'm not sure why you are mentioning that. There are many weapons that can be used for war. Are we to remove all weapons of war? Is this your point?

My point is that the AR-15 is just a M4 with the fully automatic setting removed. The design was absolutely meant for war. You’re the one trying to argue it wasn’t designed for war.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Silver_Coconut
My point is that the AR-15 is just a M4 with the fully automatic setting removed. The design was absolutely meant for war. You’re the one trying to argue it wasn’t designed for war.

I'm saying that the semiautomatic AR-15 was not designed for war, it was a modification of the weapon designed for war but it is not the same weapon. What is your point?
 
Lol it’s called gun show loophole because that’s where it is prevalent y’all are getting upset because of the name and not the heart of the problem lol

Really weird fixation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dizzy01
If you remove the fully automatic feature of the M4 it just becomes a semi automatic weapon. So that would be implying there is a difference in functionality but not so great to really matter in real life usage.
Ok, so let me ask this. Would you have a problem with a civilian owning a Garand, or an M1A1 or M21.? Why or why not?
 
No it just shows me you back legislation about things that you really don’t understand.
Does it discredit the heart of the argument and the ratio of how much access Americans have guns vs other countries?

No it doesn’t?

Okay

Youre exploiting one oversight without any actual substance to your argument that’s a very weak argument and you know it

It’s the equivalence of someone not using the right there/their/they’re and ignoring the point to make your own lack of an argument try to stand

You’re doing the same thing for semi auto and full auto argument - the heart of the argument is that the semi auto function is how most people use ARs to kill people not full automatic so not having full automatic doesn’t make it any less deadly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT