Realistically what can we do about guns when we have 430 million in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Such a stupid statement. Why would the department of defense specifically choose a weak weapon for soldiers.

You are a liar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Yup. The AR-15 is so weak the Las Vegas shooter was able to fire 2000 rounds and kill 57 people like shooting fish in a barrel from many yards away.

Such a 'weak' weapon.

[Anonymous]

At this point, it's impossible to get rid of guns in America.

Think the only practical things that can be done is mandatory insurance for every gun owner. And mandatory psychological examination for every gun owner - as they do in Switzerland.

The biggest thing we can do is on the punitive side. Mandatory 15 year sentences with no parole for anyone that uses a gun in ANY crime. This includes illegal ownership, failure to register and undergo psychological examination, illegal selling or donating a firearm, brandishing, failure to secure a firearm from the reach of a child or anyone besides the legal, registered owner, and all the way to armed robbery, assault, and murder.

Automatic 15 years. DA's and judges will no longer be allowed to let all those teenagers with illegal guns off with just a warning. 15 years automatically. Parents would finally keep their guns locked up. No more road rage brandishing. Crime and the gun deaths would go down dramatically with a mandatory 15 year no parole sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Yup. The AR-15 is so weak the Las Vegas shooter was able to fire 2000 rounds and kill 57 people like shooting fish in a barrel from many yards away.

Such a 'weak' weapon.

Bump stock unfortunately, but Trump did ban them after that. Don't know what that other guy has done concerning gun control. enlighten me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, it's impossible to get rid of guns in America.

Think the only practical things that can be done is mandatory insurance for every gun owner. And mandatory psychological examination for every gun owner - as they do in Switzerland.

The biggest thing we can do is on the punitive side. Mandatory 15 year sentences with no parole for anyone that uses a gun in ANY crime. This includes illegal ownership, failure to register and undergo psychological examination, illegal selling or donating a firearm, brandishing, failure to secure a firearm from the reach of a child or anyone besides the legal, registered owner, and all the way to armed robbery, assault, and murder.

Automatic 15 years. DA's and judges will no longer be allowed to let all those teenagers with illegal guns off with just a warning. 15 years automatically. Parents would finally keep their guns locked up. No more road rage brandishing. Crime and the gun deaths would go down dramatically with a mandatory 15 year no parole sentence.

Nope. Hard, HARD “NO” to this crap. Because it will only be applied and enforced against young Black men and POC in general. White gun nutters will still go on doing what they want, massacring toddlers at school and Jews in synagogues.

Better to just ban guns altogether than have a bunch of laws that won’t be applied or enforced equitably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Yup. The AR-15 is so weak the Las Vegas shooter was able to fire 2000 rounds and kill 57 people like shooting fish in a barrel from many yards away.

Such a 'weak' weapon.

In the interest of accuracy, literally ANY gun could’ve done the same thing in that scenario, firing into a crowd of people. Literally every single bullet fired is going to hit someone. The Vegas shooter fired 2,000 rounds in under one minute and wounded over 3,300 people and killed 57. So every single bullet he fired hit someone, and many of the bullets went through one person and then hit another. But any gun would’ve done the same thing in a tightly packed crowd like that.

That’s why it’s important to work to ban ALL of them, rather than focus on specific types or models. Because outlawing AR15’s while still allowing other types of guns will just ensure those other types of guns will be the ones used in the next massacre.

Ban them ALL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Yup. The AR-15 is so weak the Las Vegas shooter was able to fire 2000 rounds and kill 57 people like shooting fish in a barrel from many yards away.

Such a 'weak' weapon.

In the interest of accuracy, literally ANY gun could’ve done the same thing in that scenario, firing into a crowd of people. Literally every single bullet fired is going to hit someone. The Vegas shooter fired 2,000 rounds in under one minute and wounded over 3,300 people and killed 57. So every single bullet he fired hit someone, and many of the bullets went through one person and then hit another. But any gun would’ve done the same thing in a tightly packed crowd like that.

That’s why it’s important to work to ban ALL of them, rather than focus on specific types or models. Because outlawing AR15’s while still allowing other types of guns will just ensure those other types of guns will be the ones used in the next massacre.

Ban them ALL.

Don’t care, have my guns and you aren’t getting them, haha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

Why do you care more aboiut the school shootings?

Did you forget BLM/social justice issue of the community? Most lives taken by firearm not by school shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Such a stupid statement. Why would the department of defense specifically choose a weak weapon for soldiers.

You are a liar

Older weapons by DOD were more powerful per shot. Bigger bullet, more gunpowder, bigger range. It also penetration more. This mean that cover can be shot into.

They went to lighter weapon which carry more bullet at the time where military doctrine was to mass fire into jungle insteadf of precision firing of the bullet. They did no need the further range of the 7.62 when engagement was so close.

Need right tool for job time.

This previous person no lie, but you lack education of the subject matter expertise.

Let's study!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Such a stupid statement. Why would the department of defense specifically choose a weak weapon for soldiers.

You are a liar

Older weapons by DOD were more powerful per shot. Bigger bullet, more gunpowder, bigger range. It also penetration more. This mean that cover can be shot into.

They went to lighter weapon which carry more bullet at the time where military doctrine was to mass fire into jungle insteadf of precision firing of the bullet. They did no need the further range of the 7.62 when engagement was so close.

Need right tool for job time.

This previous person no lie, but you lack education of the subject matter expertise.

Let's study!

Too bad you didn’t study grammar as much as you studied tools for murdering people. Had to read your NRA nonsense three times to discern what you meant. What do you do for a living with such awful communication skills?