General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat does a law abiding citizen need with an assault weapon??
I'm asking for a friend.
elleng
(130,156 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)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.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Civil rights deserve nitpicking. There's never going to be a gun ban.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Completely agree. But the devil is in the details.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Don't really agree but not a terrible idea. Wouldn't have stopped today's tragedy though.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)I want to stop tomorrow's tragedy
annavictorious
(934 posts)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.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Really? Really?
840high
(17,196 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Prohibited person's are not allowed to own firearms. Firearm types are highly regulated.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Straw Man
(6,613 posts)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.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)How many guns does a human being need??
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)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)Chipped so the sheriff can track them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)How do you retrofit 300 million weapons?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Quackers
(2,256 posts)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.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)I'm sure some genius could make it so.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Straw Man
(6,613 posts)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)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)How much
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)It would be a lot cheaper to confiscate them all.
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)The Fifth Amendment
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That's why they can track cell phones and cars with no warrants.talk about a police state.
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)The last clauses of the Fifth.
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)I would put them in a heap and melt them down and make a big peace sign.
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)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)sarisataka
(18,222 posts)Your passion
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)or hunt with. The hand gun would be for home invasions.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)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)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)What is the go to rifle of choice for hunting? Do you know?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)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)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)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)being passed?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)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)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)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)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)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."
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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)That "collage" was simply a Google image search screen capture. Didnt realize there was WW1 era rifle there.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)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)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)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)"Varmints and feral hogs."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Can be misused.
So what are you insinuating?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)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.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Small children?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)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.
Arkansas Granny
(31,484 posts)raccoon
(31,092 posts)Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #79)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The weapon he appears to have had functions the same as a NY SAFE act compliant rifle.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)My preferred answer is because I like firearms.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)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.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The same as when a loved one was killed by a drunk driver
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)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)I don't interact with people who sling NRA/RWNJ talking points. Bye.
Response to Dem2 (Reply #118)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
I'm not a gun-nut though...
Response to Dem2 (Reply #148)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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)Your friend's reasons may be different then others.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They kill many more and I fear the texting driver on the roads. Already been rear ended by one person texting while driving.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Decide US laws.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)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)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Why does anyyone need a sports car?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)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??
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You reference from your Twitter post.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)And the rest of Europe???
Deny the facts??
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Culture is the biggest part.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)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)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.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)Sanders prime motive is keeping his seat safe, rather than keeping people safe.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Different weapons for different types of shooting
linuxman
(2,337 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Handgun...okay.
Hunting rifle...fine.
Semi automatic, automatic with a magazine with 8+ bullets...NOPE.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Mind you allowing everyone to keep the ones still out there.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)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)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.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Just here in the land of freedumb.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)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
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)Is this need to target shoot more important than the need to stop mass shootings??
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)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.
jpak
(41,742 posts)yup
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)If we can't control citizens at least we can control their devices.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Then why are 99% of firearms owners not out committing murders
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)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)Orlando: AR-15
Aurora: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Umpqua Community College: AR-15
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)that government is powerless to do anything about it.
Should I believe that?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don't think this country is willing to do it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)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)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)..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)Although its usually for shotguns I believe.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)still_one
(91,968 posts)Cosmocat
(14,543 posts)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)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)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)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)and massacre children with a six pack or cigarettes ...
You can come up with a much better false equivalency.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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)uses FUD on them. What will they do with all those firearms? We only have two hands.
Rex
(65,616 posts)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)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)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.