Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
162 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What does a law abiding citizen need with an assault weapon?? (Original Post) Gomez163 Jun 2016 OP
NOTHING. elleng Jun 2016 #1
What is an "assault weapon"? TeddyR Jun 2016 #2
My response would be to widen the ban if you nitpick. Gonna nitpick?? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #3
I am TeddyR Jun 2016 #4
Does the right to keep and bear arms have limits? I say it does. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #8
It does! TeddyR Jun 2016 #10
I would limit it to one hand gun and one rifle. And I would chip them. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #13
Ok TeddyR Jun 2016 #21
We dont know what would have stopped today's tragedy. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #23
It's pointless to argue. They will never admit that Sanders self-serving position annavictorious Jun 2016 #39
You want to make this about Sanders? Straw Man Jun 2016 #85
How stupid. 840high Jun 2016 #129
???? WTF jack_krass Jun 2016 #159
Ye, we already have many limits in place Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #12
Today is proof the system is not working. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #14
Of course it would. Straw Man Jun 2016 #5
Do you have enough guns now? Or would you like more?? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #7
"Enough guns"? Straw Man Jun 2016 #16
I want to limit them as needed. One hand gun and one rifle per person. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #19
Real time tracking? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #22
I would. Its a dangerous object. I would want to know where it was at all times. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #25
How do you power it? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33
I would put the onus on the owner to arrange it or turn the gun over. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #40
Quite unconstitutional Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #64
I think Heller would still allow reasonable regulation. It forbid an outright ban. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #66
It's not possible. Quackers Jun 2016 #54
What do you mean by chip them? nt Quackers Jun 2016 #27
Affix a tracking device to them. It could be a small sticker if necessary. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #30
Ok gotcha. Fwiw, all firearms already have individual serial numbers on them. nt Quackers Jun 2016 #34
Which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had. Straw Man Jun 2016 #31
I would provide federal funds for that. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #32
Sure you would Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #36
Whatever is necessary. Mind you the money is to uphold the Second Amendment. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #38
Not if you follow sarisataka Jun 2016 #76
The fourth amendment would apply to persons, not what you carry Gomez163 Jun 2016 #80
Sure if you believe so Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #89
I was thinking of sarisataka Jun 2016 #95
I would gladly pay to be rid of the offending item. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #97
Perhaps you would sarisataka Jun 2016 #104
I would ransom all of my tomorrows to have those 50 people back. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #105
I can appreciate sarisataka Jun 2016 #106
The shooter had an AR 15. Im talking about a rife to kill dangerous wildlife Gomez163 Jun 2016 #35
Right -- an AR 15 is underpowered for dangerous game. Straw Man Jun 2016 #61
The AR is great for small dangerous animals Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #68
You go hunting with an AR-15 or this AR-10 Gomez163 Jun 2016 #73
They are used for feral hogs around here Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #78
Lots of people do. Straw Man Jun 2016 #81
What about someone who already owns three (or more) guns? Will they be confiscated? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #149
Buyback plan Gomez163 Jun 2016 #150
That would cost (roughly) $300 billion dollars. What do you think are the chances of such a plan Just reading posts Jun 2016 #153
Over 10 years Gomez163 Jun 2016 #155
Again, I ask: What do you think the chances are of such legislation being passed? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #156
I have 1 TeddyR Jun 2016 #17
.+1 840high Jun 2016 #130
I have several Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #20
Guns are like golf clubs, different game, different gun sports, different activities, seasonal braddy Jun 2016 #124
Posturing, and posing, and strutting around pretending to have expertise annavictorious Jun 2016 #46
I'm not "pretending" anything. Straw Man Jun 2016 #67
Anything with a detachable magazine or clip. DCBob Jun 2016 #15
Wait, so..... Adrahil Jun 2016 #131
There can be exceptions for antiques as there are now. DCBob Jun 2016 #135
I'd say that anything with a manual action would be exempt. Adrahil Jun 2016 #136
Yes, that makes total sense. DCBob Jun 2016 #140
Oh boy, another gun apologist wants to play he Gun Nomenclature Game. Hoyt Jun 2016 #127
An assault rifle is select fire (full auto or semi auto) REP Jun 2016 #133
I can't think of a single reason that a civilian should have access to military grade weapons. Arkansas Granny Jun 2016 #6
It was not military grade Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #24
Killed 50 and wounded 53 in a night club. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #71
In a criminals hands, anything Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #86
You are insinuating that this assault weapon... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #94
When was an AR type weapon ever marketed to murder Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #98
Just watch the "news" today. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #110
As a hunting rifle, it seems to be very popular for hunting people. Arkansas Granny Jun 2016 #79
THANK YOU. nt raccoon Jun 2016 #121
This message was self-deleted by its author Matt_R Jun 2016 #146
Depend on what an assault weapon is Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #9
Assault weapon is just a made up term by gun control advocates. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #11
How many do you need? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #18
As many as I want. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #42
Is this the society you want? What if that was a loved one that got shot? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #44
I would be very sad Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #49
Over the last 40 years or so...homicide rates have fallen by 50% in the U.S. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #51
I read all that you're saying in the posts above on gun-nut boards all day long Dem2 Jun 2016 #118
This message was self-deleted by its author Matt_R Jun 2016 #147
I own guns Dem2 Jun 2016 #148
This message was self-deleted by its author Matt_R Jun 2016 #154
Not sure what the point of that question is. Adrahil Jun 2016 #132
Need, or want? Lots of ways to justify having something. jmg257 Jun 2016 #26
You have to ask yourself is this the society you want? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #28
I'm more liable to ask what can be done to make things better. Nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #41
I would get rid of alcohol and cell phones Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #43
I also worry about a society where murdering radical extremists homophobes jmg257 Jun 2016 #65
Couldn't say. Mine are all counterassault weapons. linuxman Jun 2016 #29
Why do you need that much weaponry? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #37
Is there now a department of needs? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #45
Because the price you pay is to foster a gun culture that Gomez163 Jun 2016 #48
Still have not found the study that Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #55
How do you explain the disparity between the US and Japan and the UK?? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #62
Like I said before and you dismissed Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #70
I just dont think it tells the whole story. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #77
Gun culture does no such thing. beevul Jun 2016 #96
This person does get their facts from Twitter Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #100
Deflecting begs the question. Sanders position on guns is a fatal disqualification. annavictorious Jun 2016 #53
Sounds like the poster target shoots like me Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #47
How much do you think I have, exactly? I gave no number. linuxman Jun 2016 #60
Exactly....that's why I only buy counter-assault firearms. ileus Jun 2016 #50
No one needs one... tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #52
Hence the 2013 Obama bill to limit further purchases of the latter. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #58
I really thought we had a chance... tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #63
That law would have easily been defeated by changing the pistol grip for $30. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #82
They seem to work fine everywhere but here. Why is that? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #84
I dont know what you mean by "they work fine by everywhere but here" aikoaiko Jun 2016 #87
Dont see many mass shootings in the UK or Japan. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #91
True but there are probably many reasons for that including guns. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #102
Is this how you want it? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #103
I don't know if I have a choice. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #107
Basically they are relatively low-power, reliable, and durable rifles Recursion Jun 2016 #56
I'm not making judgments. Life is a balancing of interests. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #69
I'm not sure. As awful as it is to say today, mass shootings aren't what I really care about Recursion Jun 2016 #74
I always thought the whole malitia vs Govt thing Lance Bass esquire Jun 2016 #57
. linuxman Jun 2016 #88
What is profoundly ignorant is the idea that Vietnam acts as any kind of comparison for this. Kentonio Jun 2016 #115
You're right, it is different. linuxman Jun 2016 #117
You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that any oppressive domestic regime Kentonio Jun 2016 #119
I wouldn't be sure about that. linuxman Jun 2016 #120
"Americans as a whole value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing." Kentonio Jun 2016 #122
Considering 2/3 of those are suicides, the Patriot act is universally loathed, linuxman Jun 2016 #123
Oh its 'universally loathed' is it? Kentonio Jun 2016 #125
The whole purpose of the 2nd was not so the people could jmg257 Jun 2016 #92
For Tactical Tier 1 Operator status, of course Matrosov Jun 2016 #59
Depends upon where you live One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #72
To enlarge their inadequate selves and stroke with vigorous affection jpak Jun 2016 #75
The term is External Death Penis. Gomez163 Jun 2016 #101
Don't these people realize guns kill people? ileus Jun 2016 #83
Yes, and we realize that's why you and other gungeoneers are attracted to them. Hoyt Jun 2016 #90
Oh really Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #93
They buy them because they can kill with them. If that was not an interest, a BB gun would work for Hoyt Jun 2016 #99
well, this particular weapon has assaulted many.... spanone Jun 2016 #108
I'm told you can't ban them because there are so many types of them Gomez163 Jun 2016 #109
Well, simply naming a model is useless. Adrahil Jun 2016 #134
How about being able to shoot 20 rounds real fast? Gomez163 Jun 2016 #137
That gets to the heart of the matter.... semi-automatic capability. Adrahil Jun 2016 #139
Most of the mass shootings involve recent purchases Gomez163 Jun 2016 #142
That is true. Good luck. Adrahil Jun 2016 #145
My understanding Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #112
Nobody needs one. JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #111
Not to pick a fight, but you asked... JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #113
Even in most countries with bans there are still exceptions made for farmers. Kentonio Jun 2016 #116
They'll play semantic games with this one like they usually do uponit7771 Jun 2016 #114
To kill people still_one Jun 2016 #126
They are fucking toys/collectables Cosmocat Jun 2016 #128
That's true to some extent. Adrahil Jun 2016 #138
Its the most dishonest conversation this country has Cosmocat Jun 2016 #157
All rights are a balancing act. Adrahil Jun 2016 #160
You can't walk into a school room Cosmocat Jun 2016 #161
Now, we just kill them over time with second hand smoke. Adrahil Jun 2016 #162
The conditioning is rather disturbing, they rush out to be more guns when ever the RWing media Rex Jun 2016 #143
My family and extended family mostly consists of game hunters. Rex Jun 2016 #141
low self esteem, bad aim, deep insecurities IronLionZion Jun 2016 #144
Everyone watch the news tomorrow Calista241 Jun 2016 #151
if you're a gun humping piece of shit coward, you think you need one Skittles Jun 2016 #152
^^That Orrex Jun 2016 #158
 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
2. What is an "assault weapon"?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:24 PM
Jun 2016

That type of rifle fires one bullet per trigger pull. In other words, it looks different but functions just like your grandfathers .22. A semiauto pistol operates just the same.

 

annavictorious

(934 posts)
39. It's pointless to argue. They will never admit that Sanders self-serving position
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:44 PM
Jun 2016

on guns is a major flaw in their candidate.

They'll posture and pose and pretend to have expertise because they know that Sanders's gun record is absolutely indefensible.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
12. Ye, we already have many limits in place
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:32 PM
Jun 2016

Prohibited person's are not allowed to own firearms. Firearm types are highly regulated.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
5. Of course it would.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:28 PM
Jun 2016
My response would be to widen the ban if you nitpick. Gonna nitpick??

Thanks for confirming that your broader agenda is to ban as many weapons as possible, and that "assault weapons" are just the low-hanging fruit.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
16. "Enough guns"?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 PM
Jun 2016
Do you have enough guns now? Or would you like more??

How many guns does a human being need??

What does the number of guns have to do with it? The Orlando shooter had two.

You want to ban as many types of guns as possible. Does that sound about right?
 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
19. I want to limit them as needed. One hand gun and one rifle per person.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:35 PM
Jun 2016

Chipped so the sheriff can track them.

Quackers

(2,256 posts)
54. It's not possible.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM
Jun 2016

The only ways to do this are by using a SIM chip similar to a cell phone or by GPS. GPS signals are not reliable once indoors or in a shielded structure. Sim tracking requires a monthly subscription. It also doesn't affect those who want to remove the device and hide the weapon.

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
30. Affix a tracking device to them. It could be a small sticker if necessary.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:39 PM
Jun 2016

I'm sure some genius could make it so.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
31. Which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:40 PM
Jun 2016

One rifle and one handgun.

"So the sheriff can track them"? What sheriff's department has the staffing to track every gun owner all the time?

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
38. Whatever is necessary. Mind you the money is to uphold the Second Amendment.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jun 2016

It would be a lot cheaper to confiscate them all.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
89. Sure if you believe so
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:06 PM
Jun 2016

That's why they can track cell phones and cars with no warrants.talk about a police state.

sarisataka

(18,222 posts)
95. I was thinking of
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM
Jun 2016

The last clauses of the Fifth.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


Even if you change the second and pass laws to allow legal confiscation of guns, the owners have to be fairly compensated for their property
 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
97. I would gladly pay to be rid of the offending item.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:11 PM
Jun 2016

I would put them in a heap and melt them down and make a big peace sign.

sarisataka

(18,222 posts)
104. Perhaps you would
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:19 PM
Jun 2016

And it would likely reduce gun deaths. The cost would be astronomical; not even considering the political capital to get to that point.

Even then we would not be a gun free society

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
35. The shooter had an AR 15. Im talking about a rife to kill dangerous wildlife
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:42 PM
Jun 2016

or hunt with. The hand gun would be for home invasions.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
61. Right -- an AR 15 is underpowered for dangerous game.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:52 PM
Jun 2016

Something like this would be preferable:



This handgun for home invasions certainly wouldn't have magazine-capacity restrictions, would it? The ones the home invaders use certainly won't.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
68. The AR is great for small dangerous animals
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:57 PM
Jun 2016

Light, very accurate, quick follow-up shots against small targets. You would need it's big brother, the AR-10 for large game. But again a great hunting rifle.

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
73. You go hunting with an AR-15 or this AR-10
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:59 PM
Jun 2016

What is the go to rifle of choice for hunting? Do you know?

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
78. They are used for feral hogs around here
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:02 PM
Jun 2016

I do not hunt. I do know they are the least used weapons in mass shootings and gun related murders per the FBI.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
81. Lots of people do.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:02 PM
Jun 2016
You go hunting with an AR-15 or this AR-10

What is the go to rifle of choice for hunting? Do you know?

That's like asking what the "go-to car for highway driving" is. The choices are too many and too varied to have a cogent response. People hunt with bolt-actions, lever-actions, semi-autos, double-barrels, single-shots, and muzzle-loaders. People even hunt with air guns. What's your point?
 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
153. That would cost (roughly) $300 billion dollars. What do you think are the chances of such a plan
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:37 PM
Jun 2016

being passed?

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
17. I have 1
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 PM
Jun 2016

But may buy another. Why does the number of guns matter? If I own 100 guns but never shoot anyone where is the harm?

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
20. I have several
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:35 PM
Jun 2016

Most are bolt action military specification rifles. I have a few AR platform weapons that are not military specifications. All locked in my safe.

 

braddy

(3,585 posts)
124. Guns are like golf clubs, different game, different gun sports, different activities, seasonal
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:57 PM
Jun 2016

wardrobes, all call for different guns.

You can't go skeet shooting with your pistol, and you want a powerful rifle for defense against large animals when hiking in wilderness, not the little AR-15 that you use to kill coyotes, and on and on.

Also guns change, and your wants change, there is no such thing as a single perfect gun for all sexes and all people, and all ages, and all times, and all sports, and all calibers, etc.

 

annavictorious

(934 posts)
46. Posturing, and posing, and strutting around pretending to have expertise
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:48 PM
Jun 2016

is not going to work. Sanders against reasonable controls on guns because he is afraid he would lose his seat otherwise. His position is rooted in pure self-interest, and everyone knows it.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
67. I'm not "pretending" anything.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:55 PM
Jun 2016
Posturing, and posing, and strutting around pretending to have expertise

is not going to work.

I'm using facts to counter what I see as ridiculous and ultimately fruitless proposals -- proposals which most certainly are "not going to work."
 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
131. Wait, so.....
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:29 PM
Jun 2016

My antique bolt action rifle, built in 1896, is an "assault weapon" because it has a detachable magazine?

The irony is, of course, that under federal law, the gun I mentioned isn't even treated as a firearm at all. It is an antique.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
136. I'd say that anything with a manual action would be exempt.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:37 PM
Jun 2016

I made the comment because your collage there (I know you didn't make it) include a WWI era SMLE rifle.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
140. Yes, that makes total sense.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:43 PM
Jun 2016

That "collage" was simply a Google image search screen capture. Didnt realize there was WW1 era rifle there.


REP

(21,691 posts)
133. An assault rifle is select fire (full auto or semi auto)
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:33 PM
Jun 2016

Assault style - the kind available to civilians, such as AR15, are semi-auto only. The have the looks of an assault rifle but not the function.

Arkansas Granny

(31,484 posts)
6. I can't think of a single reason that a civilian should have access to military grade weapons.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:28 PM
Jun 2016

This is not a hunting rifle. This weapon was designed for no other purpose than to kill people, as fast as possible, and nothing else.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
24. It was not military grade
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:37 PM
Jun 2016

You have been misled. The AR platform is a great hunting rifle. Light and very accurate. The AR -15 for varmints and feral hogs. TheAR--10 for large game.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
94. You are insinuating that this assault weapon...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM
Jun 2016

which does exactly what it was designed and marketed to do over and over - including on small school children - is not actually an assault weapon.

Seems like you are very wrong.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
110. Just watch the "news" today.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:39 PM
Jun 2016

Just like back on December 14, 2012 from Newtown, Connecticut.

This weapon does exactly what it was designed and marketed to do.

Can you differentiate a "gun enthusiast" from a psycho or a murderer?

Apparently, it's not a skill 'sellers' seem to have.

Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #79)

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
9. Depend on what an assault weapon is
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:30 PM
Jun 2016

The weapon he appears to have had functions the same as a NY SAFE act compliant rifle.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
11. Assault weapon is just a made up term by gun control advocates.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:32 PM
Jun 2016

My preferred answer is because I like firearms.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
42. As many as I want.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:45 PM
Jun 2016

There are perhaps thousands of different semi-automatic rifles, each one having various distinctions that make them all noteworthy in some way.

I think most gun control laws should be repealed.

 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
51. Over the last 40 years or so...homicide rates have fallen by 50% in the U.S.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM
Jun 2016

If a loved one was shot, I would place blame where blame was due, not on an inanimate object.

Does that make sense to you? It's just my opinion.

Dem2

(8,166 posts)
118. I read all that you're saying in the posts above on gun-nut boards all day long
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:01 PM
Jun 2016

I don't interact with people who sling NRA/RWNJ talking points. Bye.

Response to Dem2 (Reply #118)

Response to Dem2 (Reply #148)

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
132. Not sure what the point of that question is.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:30 PM
Jun 2016

If I intend to kill someone with a gun, one is too much. If not, then 100 isn't any threat.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
26. Need, or want? Lots of ways to justify having something.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:37 PM
Jun 2016

Your friend's reasons may be different then others.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
43. I would get rid of alcohol and cell phones
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:45 PM
Jun 2016

They kill many more and I fear the texting driver on the roads. Already been rear ended by one person texting while driving.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
29. Couldn't say. Mine are all counterassault weapons.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:39 PM
Jun 2016

I exclusively target shoot. In a pinch, I'd use it in home defense if it came to it. I buy ergonomic, lightweight, accurate, and modular guns that shoot popular calibers I can find easily. The ar15 fits the bill in spades.

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
48. Because the price you pay is to foster a gun culture that
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:48 PM
Jun 2016

kills 3 per 100,000 in this country versus .5 per 100,000 in the UK.

What benefit do you get from all that weaponry??

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
62. How do you explain the disparity between the US and Japan and the UK??
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:52 PM
Jun 2016

And the rest of Europe???

Deny the facts??

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
77. I just dont think it tells the whole story.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:01 PM
Jun 2016

I think we can do better as a people and still protect 2nd amendment rights.

And if its the culture, we need to change that too. We need to start with the children and changes how they're educated to teach peacemaking and dispute resolution.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
96. Gun culture does no such thing.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM
Jun 2016

People - individuals - make choices.

2 of your 3 per 100,000 are people who choose to end their own lives, assuming you were talking about gun deaths and not murders.

Blaming that on 'gun culture' does a disservice to those making such decisions, by focusing on the instrument rather than the decision. Not something I'd expect from those who claim to want solutions, but definitely something I'd expect from those that just want to get the guns - as if the dead would be better off dying from an OD or a fall from a tall building or bridge.

 

annavictorious

(934 posts)
53. Deflecting begs the question. Sanders position on guns is a fatal disqualification.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM
Jun 2016

Sanders prime motive is keeping his seat safe, rather than keeping people safe.

tallahasseedem

(6,716 posts)
52. No one needs one...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM
Jun 2016

Handgun...okay.
Hunting rifle...fine.
Semi automatic, automatic with a magazine with 8+ bullets...NOPE.

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
58. Hence the 2013 Obama bill to limit further purchases of the latter.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:51 PM
Jun 2016

Mind you allowing everyone to keep the ones still out there.

tallahasseedem

(6,716 posts)
63. I really thought we had a chance...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:53 PM
Jun 2016

on that one, but obviously it didn't pan out. If it did, this lunatic wouldn't have been able to walk in and buy one less than a week ago.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
82. That law would have easily been defeated by changing the pistol grip for $30.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jun 2016

Lanza had a legal AR15 that was compliant with the CT state level AWB which was identical to the federal ban which went away in 2004.

AWB are flawed for the start.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
87. I dont know what you mean by "they work fine by everywhere but here"
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:05 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
102. True but there are probably many reasons for that including guns.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:15 PM
Jun 2016

Remember that the second most deadly mass shooting was at Virginia Tech and that shooter used two pistols with standard magazines.

We are a nore diverse country with a long history of using violence to solve our problems. There are other countries like us but they too have violence problems

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
56. Basically they are relatively low-power, reliable, and durable rifles
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM
Jun 2016

So to the extent that people "need" a rifle, they are popular. They're underpowered for most hunting, but then again only about 20% of gun owners hunt to begin with; they're mostly popular for target shooting. (Which is not a "need" of course, but if you're actually curious why people buy them.)

 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
69. I'm not making judgments. Life is a balancing of interests.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:57 PM
Jun 2016

Is this need to target shoot more important than the need to stop mass shootings??

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
74. I'm not sure. As awful as it is to say today, mass shootings aren't what I really care about
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:00 PM
Jun 2016

in terms of gun control. If this is an "average" day, 60 people died in "normal" shootings (almost all from handguns) in addition to the 50 killed in the nightclub. Those are really kind of two unrelated problems, but the "normal" shootings are killing an order of magnitude more people and if we can only pass one law I'd rather it be about them. And the majority of mass shootings are with handguns, anyways. I'd much rather look at handguns first, particularly since they are the majority of both "kinds" of shootings.

 

Lance Bass esquire

(671 posts)
57. I always thought the whole malitia vs Govt thing
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:51 PM
Jun 2016

Is a futile argument. If the day ever came where the Govt turned its military on its people its Game Over.

In the real world a bunch of Texas farmers with pop guns stand no chance of defeating air strikes ,Abrahams tanks, RPG and footsoldiers.

They can sit in their backyard bunkers watching Red Dawn and dream of being a Wolverine but that's all it will ever be.

The citizens have not been able or capable of fighting of a Govt military attack sine before the civil war.

I am a gun owner but protecting myself from the Feds with them is downright funny.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
88. .
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:05 PM
Jun 2016

Just like when we soundly defeated goat herders and rice farmers in the third world using antique firearms?


Do people really think the government is going to drone the suburbs and still have the backing of the people who live there and make up the very military that will supposedly be killing them?


I would never advocate for the violent overthrow of our government, but to suggest that a populace armed with rifles couldn't take on a modern military is so profoundly ignorant I don't even know where to begin

The afghans didn't start their war against the soviets with soviet equipment, but before it was over they had everything up to the rooskies' tanks.

Assymmetric warfare doesn't work like conventional warfare. At all.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
115. What is profoundly ignorant is the idea that Vietnam acts as any kind of comparison for this.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:35 PM
Jun 2016

Or Afghanistan for that matter. Resisting a foreign invader is a completely different situation from resisting your own government who not only speak the same language, know the country just as well as you, and also happen to have huge amounts of data about you.

That's completely setting aside the added difference of course that a bunch of overweight militia wannabes who have spent most of their lives sat on their asses watching TV are not going to suddenly form a fighting force that will leave the US military at a loss how to react. Unless of course they are briefly stopped by uncontrollable fits of laughter.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
117. You're right, it is different.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:59 PM
Jun 2016

America has 21.8 million veterans, with several million being young, recently seperated ones fresh from our recent wars. We also would have to draw our armed forces from the very populace we'd be fighting. Most bases are in the conservative south as well, and that would certainly be where your anti-government types would be coming from. Combine that with the fact that the military and veterans tend to lean far to the right and many of them wouldn't blindly start killing their family and neighbors on behalf of the government, you're right. It would be nothing like Vietnam. It would make vietnam look like a ticker tape worthy blowout.

The US will never gave another civil war, but if it did it would certainly nor go how you envision it, guns being the least of the reasons why.



 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
119. You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that any oppressive domestic regime
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:05 PM
Jun 2016

Would almost certainly be a far right government, just like those people you're saying wouldn't start killing their neighbours on behalf of the government.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
120. I wouldn't be sure about that.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:25 PM
Jun 2016

We've had a solid 8 years of a liberal administration that only seemed interested in beefing up the Patriot act, reinforcing the police state and further curtailing individuals. Authoritarian regimes are equal opportunity, and this administration has shiwn authortarian statusm to be a partyless trend in our politics. I've seen a few documentaries on militia types. They seem to take issue with the government period, not right or left. At any rate, citizens aren't going to see tanks crushing the bricks of mainstreet and drones blowing up a trailer park and say "you know what? I support this! Where do I enlist? " Americans as a whole value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing. It's harder to cow that sort of people than a society where brutality, violence, and total subjugation is the norm, and it doesn't work well in those places either.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
122. "Americans as a whole value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing."
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:31 PM
Jun 2016

Why would you think that? 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, and for the most part the majority of people don't care enough to actually force any change. The Patriot Act stripped away a whole raft of personal freedoms, but the one in a million chance of being a terrorist victim was enough for most people to happily wave it through. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people died in the Middle East because of US adventurism, and again most people didn't actually care because they felt it made them safer (which would be funny if it wasn't so ludicrously tragic). Meanwhile tens of thousands of Americans die each year because of a lack of basic healthcare, and once again the majority don't actually care, as long as no-one is trying to put their taxes up a few percentage points.

The idea that Americans as a whole give a damn about "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing" for anyone other than themselves or their family and friends is one of the biggest myths out there.

 

linuxman

(2,337 posts)
123. Considering 2/3 of those are suicides, the Patriot act is universally loathed,
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:54 PM
Jun 2016

Our adventuring into the middle east is not popular, we elected representatives who passed obamaxare, etc, I'm not quite sure I agree with you.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
125. Oh its 'universally loathed' is it?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:02 PM
Jun 2016

Like this 2004 poll which showed a universal 26% of Americans who thought it went too far in restricting civil liberties?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/10858/americans-generally-comfortable-patriot-act.aspx

Even if that number is radically different now, so what exactly? People might tell a pollster 'I don't like that' but what do they actually do to change it? Because last I checked, the vast majority of people do exactly nothing, even if they are one of the maybe 60% who bother to vote once every 4 years.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
92. The whole purpose of the 2nd was not so the people could
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:09 PM
Jun 2016

Fight the govt's huge standing army, but to prevent the pretense for the govt to have s huge standing army in the 1st place,

Obviously a notion that is obsolete. The people decided they prefer the army, but left the laws saying otherwise on the books.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
72. Depends upon where you live
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:58 PM
Jun 2016

If you describe your place as, "If you can see it, I own it" or describe how many days it takes you to transit the property line. Or if you routinely stock the freezer(s) during hunting season. Or have to protect the livestock on your farm/ranch. Or if you live in a ten story high rise apartment.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
83. Don't these people realize guns kill people?
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jun 2016

If we can't control citizens at least we can control their devices.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
99. They buy them because they can kill with them. If that was not an interest, a BB gun would work for
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:12 PM
Jun 2016

the few who are truly only interested in target shooting. If they weren't lethal and intimidating, gunners wouldn't strap them to their body to walk downtown.

spanone

(135,637 posts)
108. well, this particular weapon has assaulted many....
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:37 PM
Jun 2016

Orlando: AR-15
Aurora: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Umpqua Community College: AR-15
 

Gomez163

(2,039 posts)
109. I'm told you can't ban them because there are so many types of them
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:38 PM
Jun 2016

that government is powerless to do anything about it.

Should I believe that?

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
134. Well, simply naming a model is useless.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:35 PM
Jun 2016

If you want to ban weapons, you need to specify what is it that makes the weapon unacceptable. The problem is that a lot of gun control advocates have zero technical knowledge about guns, and therefore cannot name the features that make a gun unacceptable to them. You run into the problem of people being scared of crap like grips, adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, and barrel shrouds. Crap that has almost nothing to do with the actual lethality of the firearm. The start staying stupid crap like the barrel shroud is the thing that goes up.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
139. That gets to the heart of the matter.... semi-automatic capability.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:42 PM
Jun 2016

Yes, in the end, a semi-auto gun with a removable magazine is what people REALLY want to get too. And frankly, banning or heavily restricting those are the only thing that would work from a "managing things" point of view. Doing so is an EXTREMELY heavy lift, politically speaking, IMO. Even if you could ban, or heavily restrict new production, we have millions of them in circulation.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
112. My understanding
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:59 PM
Jun 2016

In Aurora the weapon jammed due to the extremely large magazine and other weapons were used for most of the murders. In Umpqua, the rifle was not used but handguns were used for the murders. Interesting you left out the many more that this type of weapon was not used by a murderer

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,283 posts)
111. Nobody needs one.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:41 PM
Jun 2016

Then again, nobody needs a Porsche, a 3000-sq-foot house, a set of golf clubs, perfume, funny hats, white teeth, etc, etc.

But we have choices.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
113. Not to pick a fight, but you asked...
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:16 PM
Jun 2016

..Let's say a Montana rancher spent time in the far reaches of his property mending fences and rounding up stray livestock, he could encounter desperate predators that would make such a weapon very handy. One would think a bolt action rifle or handgun sufficient, but those wouldn't grant such decisive firepower against large or rabid game. In such a case in an area of limited cell coverage, I'd like one in the truck's gun rack.

Having said that, I don't have an assault rifle because I have no need for one. Such a weapon in an urban/suburban environment is overwhelmingly a tool for crime.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
116. Even in most countries with bans there are still exceptions made for farmers.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:38 PM
Jun 2016

Although its usually for shotguns I believe.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
128. They are fucking toys/collectables
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:08 PM
Jun 2016

for 99% of the people in this country, and they have ginned themselves up to believe it is the most holiest of all american rights to be able to have their toys/guns.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
138. That's true to some extent.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:39 PM
Jun 2016

But we tolerate WAY more deaths from alcohol so people can get their buzz on. It's all a matter of who's ox gets gored.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
157. Its the most dishonest conversation this country has
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:14 AM
Jun 2016

And in a country that has its head so far up its ass as we do, that is saying a lot.

This jackass didn't go into that night club and kill 50+ people with a 6 pack, the jackass who killed those kids in Newton didn't use a bottle of rum.

A few weeks ago, a small christian school five miles from our house, a student walked into the office and said he had guns in his trunk. Turns out that was the second day in a row he had brought them, and he was THAT close to go on a shooting rampage in the school.

Why is it that with guns, the "gee, people will get them anyways, so we can't have any meaningful limitations thing stands?

People speed anyways, so we should not have any posted speed limits or law enforcement should not be allowed to give tickets? People will cheat on taxes, so we shouldn't have or enforce tax laws?

Alcohol kills people, so hey, everyone should have the right to have a missile launcher.

We can't even START to have an honest discussion about this issue when the most basic element is completely off the table.

it's exactly like climate change, the complete denial of it ends any effort to truly try to address it. Only with climate change you at least have a majority of the people in this country who see it for the stupid it is.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
160. All rights are a balancing act.
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:08 PM
Jun 2016

I'm just pointing out that people are willing to accept MASSIVE carnage from alcohol and cigarettes, and those products exist for one reason only: personal pleasure. You can deny that point, but it IS relevant.

I'm not opposed to greater gun control, but until gun control advocates address this basic fundamental, they are not going to convince the gun nuts.

All rights are a balancing act. Just consider that as you proceed.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
161. You can't walk into a school room
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:23 PM
Jun 2016

and massacre children with a six pack or cigarettes ...

You can come up with a much better false equivalency.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
162. Now, we just kill them over time with second hand smoke.
Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:59 PM
Jun 2016

I suffer from chronic lung problems to this day because of my parents smoking. You can declare a false equivalence if you like. I won't even say you're wrong. But the fact is that both cigarettes and alcohol kill MANY more people in this country than gun violence does. If you want to make progress on this issue, ignoring that will not benefit you.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
143. The conditioning is rather disturbing, they rush out to be more guns when ever the RWing media
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:45 PM
Jun 2016

uses FUD on them. What will they do with all those firearms? We only have two hands.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
141. My family and extended family mostly consists of game hunters.
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:44 PM
Jun 2016

I can remember being taken dove hunting with a shotgun that was longer then my body. THAT question that you ask, has been one I ask year after year.

Deer rifles are made to kill deer, assault weapons are made to kill people.

We should all be forced to go back to flintlock weapons, that way someone can get a good running start while you pack your powder and the accuracy would be horrible.

IronLionZion

(45,269 posts)
144. low self esteem, bad aim, deep insecurities
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:53 PM
Jun 2016


There's a thread with a video around here showing why it is a bad choice for home defense or hunting.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
151. Everyone watch the news tomorrow
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:34 PM
Jun 2016

and see the uncountable lines of millions of people buying firearms out there. Clearly there is a perceived "need" for firearms in this country whether you want to believe it or not.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What does a law abiding c...