Please gun supporters - explain to me once and for all why you need an automatic weapon

[Anonymous]

So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

There you have it. That's what makes it a weapon of terror. One could do the same kind of damage with a far more mundane looking Remington semi-auto rifle but as we all know the extremists and wackjobs gravitate to the AR-15s because it replicates what they see in action flicks. It looks scary. So, the nutjobs, whether guys like the Orlando shooter, or the Newtown shooter, or the Aurora shooter, and all of the latent psychopathic kooks out there among the Tea Party "militia" movement - they go out and buy the AR, think they're Rambo, think they can take anyone on and settle any score and voila. Instant toxic stew.

As for the rest, no not "many" handguns hold 30 rounds, most have far smaller capacity and as for the difference between a handgun versus a rifle, it's about the tradeoff made between close quarters maneuverability and portability versus longer distance shooting and accuracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

What was the honest question? Because the topic question ("explain to me onece and for all why you need an automatic weapon") had nothing to do with the Orlando shootings (it wasn't an automatic weapon) and makes no sense since legal automatic weapons are very rare and very expensive to purchase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

Sad fact is that "scary looking guns" are the weapon of choice for mass shooters - whether Orlando or Newtown or Aurora, et cetera. Not just any gun, but an AR-15 again and again and again. Bottom line is, AR-15s keep turning up over and over and over again in these incidents, because lunatics are drawn to them like a moth to a flame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

So I take it that our incompetent military (after all, DOD is part of the government, and we know the government can't do anything right) really should be fighting wars with revolvers instead of those "scary looking guns," that don't have any firepower or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

[Anonymous]

All in all, those with reported ties to terrorist groups or people who make threats of violence and who are put on watch lists should not be allowed to purchase guns.

We can go back and forth about how big my gun is compared to yours and BS excuses for needing to own guns. When it comes down to it the law needs to change. We are living in the year 2016 with more urban areas, higher populations, radicalization of our own citizens, and depressed individuals full of hate ready to go rampant on YOUR children, friends and family. I would gladly give up a piece of my freedom in order to keep our country safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

You're right. But semi-automatic weapons--unlike automatic weapons--also have a wide variety of legitimate uses.

I'm an advocate for additional gun control measures (required background checks on all transfers, criminal liability for negligent storage/transfer, etc.), but banning semi-autos is simply not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All in all, those with reported ties to terrorist groups or people who make threats of violence and who are put on watch lists should not be allowed to purchase guns.

We can go back and forth about how big my gun is compared to yours and BS excuses for needing to own guns. When it comes down to it the law needs to change. We are living in the year 2016 with more urban areas, higher populations, radicalization of our own citizens, and depressed individuals full of hate ready to go rampant on YOUR children, friends and family. I would gladly give up a piece of my freedom in order to keep our country safer.

Which change in the law would have prevented this?

[Anonymous]

Better 1000 terrorists to have guns legally than 1 citizen be inconvenienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

You're right. But semi-automatic weapons--unlike automatic weapons--also have a wide variety of legitimate uses.

I'm an advocate for additional gun control measures (required background checks on all transfers, criminal liability for negligent storage/transfer, etc.), but banning semi-autos is simply not realistic.

That works for me.

[Anonymous]

No-Fly, No-Buy' Gun Bill

The first gun control measure proposed by Democrats was legislation from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would deny people on a federal terrorism watch list the ability to purchase guns. The measure failed, 45-54. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) voted with Republicans to reject the measure, and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) crossed over to vote in favor of the gun restrictions.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gun-amendment-democrats-216389#ixzz4BWDKJd33
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook