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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. I weep for humanity. Only when it's too late, will people realize the consequences of clinging to their murder weapons.

Humanity is not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

I'm no expert (I come from a gun-owning family in "gun country" but am not a gun guy myself), but semi-autos have legitimate hunting applications and are often recommended for home defense. For many people in non-urban areas, those are essential (not recreational) uses.

Bottom line is that Orlando shooting would have happened with virtually any modern firearm. I suppose one could argue that "only" 30 would have died if shooter had been carrying multiple revolvers or a bolt-action weapon, but I don't find much consolation in that. Focusing on type of weapon is not useful, IMO.

Agree on limitations of background checks, though as a PP noted, the shooter in Orlando should obviously have been flagged. Similarly, Sandy Hook shooter should NEVER have been allowed to possess a firearm--red flags everywhere. A more effective and widespread background check system would be darn good place to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. I weep for humanity. Only when it's too late, will people realize the consequences of clinging to their murder weapons.

I share the sadness, but not your conclusion.

In fact, I think that attitudes like yours contribute to the inability to identify meaningful solutions.

When you talk about people "clinging to their murder weapons", you demonize those with whom you need to forge agreement.

Very Trumpian/Cruzian of you.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

I'm no expert (I come from a gun-owning family in "gun country" but am not a gun guy myself), but semi-autos have legitimate hunting applications and are often recommended for home defense. For many people in non-urban areas, those are essential (not recreational) uses.

Bottom line is that Orlando shooting would have happened with virtually any modern firearm. I suppose one could argue that "only" 30 would have died if shooter had been carrying multiple revolvers or a bolt-action weapon, but I don't find much consolation in that. Focusing on type of weapon is not useful, IMO.

Agree on limitations of background checks, though as a PP noted, the shooter in Orlando should obviously have been flagged. Similarly, Sandy Hook shooter should NEVER have been allowed to possess a firearm--red flags everywhere. A more effective and widespread background check system would be darn good place to start.

Wasn't he using his mom's gun? In other words, he was not in possession of anything, legal or not. He simply had access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fix your shit, gun people.

In Florida, though, you don't need a license to buy or carry a rifle like the AR-15. There is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun like the Glock Mateen also had on him, but no waiting period at all to buy an AR-15.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613#ixzz4BUIsTgzV

And...

Today, just over 24 hours since the Pulse attack, the NRA broke its silence by using the Twitter account of a magazine it owns to retweet from @NRABlog, “Need a gift for #FathersDay? How about a gift from the #NRA store?!”

It's pretty common to not need a license to buy or carry a long gun, and in most places you only need a permit to carry the handgun if you are going to conceal it. If you want to wear it on your belt or in a shoulder or thigh holster where it can be seen, you can without a permit.

Right, and those of us with COMMON SENSE want you to be required to be licensed only after you have completed a federally approved training and safety course just like a car, and to be required to MAINTAIN your license through periodic testing just like a car, and to have any violations or offenses count against your lisence just like a car, and to be required to REGISTER your firearms just like you register your car and to re-register periodically just like your car, and to PROVE that you have proper safety equipment in place (i.e. a gun safe). If you are so law-abiding I see no reason why you can't do this. No one is coming for your GD guns, just like no one is coming for your car. But just like with a car, you should be held LEGALLY accountable for maintaining it and operating it safely, and if you can't, then yes you should lose the privilege. We don't want reckless crazy people on our streets putting our lives in danger. We shouldn't accept reckless crazy people on our streets with guns without any way to check them either. A one-time background check at the time of purchase is bullshit. A patchwork of state laws is bullshit. I want FEDERAL LAWS that apply to everyone so that, no matter where you go in this country, you know everyone is playing by the same rules.

Reasonable proposals, but judging by this thread, quite a few people ARE coming for your guns.

Oh, please. Everyone KNOWS that that will never happen. Republicans repeat this lie because it riles people up. It's irresponsible and borderline criminal to play politics that way while people die. Who cares if a bunch of anonymous internet strangers say they support taking your guns when you know damned well that it will never happen? I mean, logistically, how at this point could the authorities possibly round up every gun in America? It would be the shootout at the OK Corral on every street corner in America. This is as stupid an assertion as deporting 11 million people or banning Muslims from the country. Can't we all grow up, be reasonable, analyze our problems and apply common sense to solving them? Be a part of the solution. Stop the nonsense. Stop the ideological pandering. And I say this to EVERYONE, regardless of political persuasion. We've all lost our goddamned minds.

10:05 here. I agree, but believe that we need to identify and neutralize the extreme rhetoric, regardless of whether it emanates from the right or left and regardless of whether the issue is immigration or gun control.

The people railing against gun owners here are no better than Trump supporters railing against immigrants or Muslims. They make the respective problems more difficult to solve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

I'm no expert (I come from a gun-owning family in "gun country" but am not a gun guy myself), but semi-autos have legitimate hunting applications and are often recommended for home defense. For many people in non-urban areas, those are essential (not recreational) uses.

Bottom line is that Orlando shooting would have happened with virtually any modern firearm. I suppose one could argue that "only" 30 would have died if shooter had been carrying multiple revolvers or a bolt-action weapon, but I don't find much consolation in that. Focusing on type of weapon is not useful, IMO.

Agree on limitations of background checks, though as a PP noted, the shooter in Orlando should obviously have been flagged. Similarly, Sandy Hook shooter should NEVER have been allowed to possess a firearm--red flags everywhere. A more effective and widespread background check system would be darn good place to start.

Wasn't he using his mom's gun? In other words, he was not in possession of anything, legal or not. He simply had access.

My recollection is that his mother bought him a gun, but may have registered it in her name. This is where storage/transfer restrictions could help--it should have been a criminal act for her to provide or give access to a person who she knew was severely emotionally disturbed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

I'm no expert (I come from a gun-owning family in "gun country" but am not a gun guy myself), but semi-autos have legitimate hunting applications and are often recommended for home defense. For many people in non-urban areas, those are essential (not recreational) uses.

Bottom line is that Orlando shooting would have happened with virtually any modern firearm. I suppose one could argue that "only" 30 would have died if shooter had been carrying multiple revolvers or a bolt-action weapon, but I don't find much consolation in that. Focusing on type of weapon is not useful, IMO.

Agree on limitations of background checks, though as a PP noted, the shooter in Orlando should obviously have been flagged. Similarly, Sandy Hook shooter should NEVER have been allowed to possess a firearm--red flags everywhere. A more effective and widespread background check system would be darn good place to start.

So I just googled Home Defense uses for the AR-15, and see that some people do indeed prefer it because (ex.) "Pistols require time and training to master and maintain proficiency."
That's the problem -- AR-15s are readily, easily available, and their users don't need time or training on the weapon. That's bullshit. Any why do you need to be ready to unload 30 bullet clips on home intruders? I can see if you're expecting a group of people inspired by the Purge, but otherwise, you're looking to protect yourself from one or two intruders in the worst of circumstances.

[Anonymous]

You can't have it both ways: you can't say firearms owners need training (which would be range shooting), but they can't have "high capacity" magazines. Because the reason for those magazines is more time actually shooting on the range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

I'm no expert (I come from a gun-owning family in "gun country" but am not a gun guy myself), but semi-autos have legitimate hunting applications and are often recommended for home defense. For many people in non-urban areas, those are essential (not recreational) uses.

Bottom line is that Orlando shooting would have happened with virtually any modern firearm. I suppose one could argue that "only" 30 would have died if shooter had been carrying multiple revolvers or a bolt-action weapon, but I don't find much consolation in that. Focusing on type of weapon is not useful, IMO.

Agree on limitations of background checks, though as a PP noted, the shooter in Orlando should obviously have been flagged. Similarly, Sandy Hook shooter should NEVER have been allowed to possess a firearm--red flags everywhere. A more effective and widespread background check system would be darn good place to start.

So I just googled Home Defense uses for the AR-15, and see that some people do indeed prefer it because (ex.) "Pistols require time and training to master and maintain proficiency."
That's the problem -- AR-15s are readily, easily available, and their users don't need time or training on the weapon. That's bullshit. Any why do you need to be ready to unload 30 bullet clips on home intruders? I can see if you're expecting a group of people inspired by the Purge, but otherwise, you're looking to protect yourself from one or two intruders in the worst of circumstances.

You're conflating several different concepts here. Hopefully, this well help sort things out:

1. AR-15 is functionally no different than standard semi-automatic hunting rifles (or semi-automatic handguns, for that matter). Each time you pull the trigger, it fires a single bullet. The Orlando killer would still have killed a great many people if he'd been using semi-automatic pistols or a semi-automatic hunting rifle. So focusing on AR-15's or "assault weapons" doesn't help, because the same or similar result would occur with any semi-auto weapon.

2. Semi-automatic weapons generally are widely used for hunting and home defense. Why? Because it's easy to miss, even with training. So "one-shot" or manual-loading weapons (think of a bolt-action rifle) are generally not well-suited to home defense.

3. I agree on magazine capacity--no real use for 30 shot clips. But again, would regulation have made a difference in Orlando? I suppose if gunman was carrying multiple pistols with 12 shot magazines, perhaps "only" 30 people would have died. Not a very satisfying solution to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

NP here. I think that your analysis is flawed. It's akin to asking someone why they "need" a website to exercise first amendment rights when they have a pen and paper, in furtherance of an argument that the government should ban websites based on content of speech.

Certain content is in fact banned. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you can't set up a website that provides detail planning for overthrow of the US Government. You also can't buy a fully automatic weapon. Maybe you can come up with a legitimate need for one, but so far the courts have not overturned that ban.

Until 2004, there was a ban on semi-automatic rifles. It was not overturned by the courts, it expired. That ban could be reinstated, and if it were, there would certainly be a discussion about why you would need such a weapon. Until Scalia died, the Supreme Court would have certainly overturned it. If Clinton is elected and gets a democratic congress too, that ban could come back for good.

I'm afraid that you're mistaken re: the law that expired in 2004: it did not ban semi-automatic rifles (which have been used for hunting, etc., since the late 19th century). The law that expired in 2004 banned a narrow subset of semi-auto weapons, which is why it was widely derided--in effect, it banned "scary-looking" guns, while allowing ownership of functionally similar guns.

Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

I should have said "certain semi-automatic weapons," were banned, but if democrats win this year, I am sure a more comprehensive ban will be considered. I am not in favor of a ban. I agree that we should have much tighter regulation for guns. I'd like to see everyone who wants a weapon get safety training and a license. Transfer would have to be through authorized dealers who would be liable if they sell a weapon to someone without a license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't have it both ways: you can't say firearms owners need training (which would be range shooting), but they can't have "high capacity" magazines. Because the reason for those magazines is more time actually shooting on the range.

Give me a break. You're talking extra seconds, not hours, to reload smaller clips, and reloading speed should be a big part of shooting practice. Again, it comes back to entertainment - You want more time (seconds) for fun on the range in exchange for public safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

I'm no expert (I come from a gun-owning family in "gun country" but am not a gun guy myself), but semi-autos have legitimate hunting applications and are often recommended for home defense. For many people in non-urban areas, those are essential (not recreational) uses.

Bottom line is that Orlando shooting would have happened with virtually any modern firearm. I suppose one could argue that "only" 30 would have died if shooter had been carrying multiple revolvers or a bolt-action weapon, but I don't find much consolation in that. Focusing on type of weapon is not useful, IMO.

Agree on limitations of background checks, though as a PP noted, the shooter in Orlando should obviously have been flagged. Similarly, Sandy Hook shooter should NEVER have been allowed to possess a firearm--red flags everywhere. A more effective and widespread background check system would be darn good place to start.

So I just googled Home Defense uses for the AR-15, and see that some people do indeed prefer it because (ex.) "Pistols require time and training to master and maintain proficiency."
That's the problem -- AR-15s are readily, easily available, and their users don't need time or training on the weapon. That's bullshit. Any why do you need to be ready to unload 30 bullet clips on home intruders? I can see if you're expecting a group of people inspired by the Purge, but otherwise, you're looking to protect yourself from one or two intruders in the worst of circumstances.

I don't know the source of the random quote you provided, but it is plainly false to say that ARs require no training to operate well. They are much more complicated than most handguns, and infinitely more complicated than any revolver. Maybe that's why handguns and pistols kill far, far more people than rifles?

Something else to think about: there are an estimate 10 million AR-15s in circulation in the US. Let that sink in. The overwhelming majority of those guns are owned by safe, sane, non-criminals. Let's not cast aspersions on millions of people because of a handful of nuts.

Also, everyone who thinks "semi-automatic" means something scary or "assault-like," Google is your friend. We don't use muskets any longer, just like we don't ride around in horse-drawn carriages. Grandpa's .22 is semi-automatic. Most common handguns are semi-automatic. AR-25s are semi-automatic. The term is not a tenth as nefarious as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous
3. I agree on magazine capacity--no real use for 30 shot clips. But again, would regulation have made a difference in Orlando? I suppose if gunman was carrying multiple pistols with 12 shot magazines, perhaps "only" 30 people would have died. Not a very satisfying solution to me.

Not a very satisfying solution to me either, but it would have been a lot better for many of the dead and injured people in that bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize that an AR-15 is not a full auto weapon, right?

And this makes a difference? Could the shooter have killed even more people with an automatic weapon?

I understand that gun owners wish to protect their constitutionally protected right to bear arms, but wouldn't be in the interest of the general good for gun owners to forego ownership of assault weapons and any other type of semi-automatic weapon to prevent maniacs from getting their hands on these weapons and using them on Americans? Perhaps gun owners who wish to own and shoot such weapons could do so only in restricted areas like gun clubs or licensed shooting ranges where the weapons would be licensed and locked up away from crazy people like the Orlando shooter.

The gun lobby opposes any restrictions on guns because the manufacturers want to sell more guns.

Money is more important than American lives to the NRA and its supporters.

When you have a mass of people to shoot at where accuracy isn't that important a fully automatic weapon would do far more damage. The answer in this case, yes the shooter could of killed many more people with a full auto weapon.

Guns are already highly restricted as far as where one can legally discharge them. Almost every municipality in the country does not legally allow the discharge of a weapon. You can't go into your backyard and legally shoot a round off in the air for kicks for example. Unless you live in a rural area. In general, the only legal way to discharge a weapon in town is at a certified range or in self defense.

There are many restrictions on gun use. Murder itself is illegal. The legal lobby likes more convoluted overlapping restrictions and laws. Gives them more billable hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've read every article I've seen on gun supporters. You want to keep your handgun "for safety", fine. But please tell me why you need and feel it's your right to buy something like an AR-15. I just can't understand.

Brilliant article by the way -

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/gun-laws-and-terrorism-an-american-nightmare?mbid=social_facebook

The weapon used was not automatic. Perhaps firearms knowledge might help you.

Read the Second Amendment and James Madison The Federalist No. 46 and then get back to me.