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

[Anonymous]

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.

Your fucking boogey man arguments are so tiresome. It's a constitutional right, so it cannot be what you say. And you know that. So just stop. And limits do not mean "taking away." It means regulating and allowing safe people to keep theirs. Yes, there will be failures in some cases. Maybe many. But, it will also save many and is a step in the right direction. So, it should be done. And all you law-abiding gun owners can still keep your weapons when the bad people descend on your home and you need to defend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 is not automatic, is not a machine gun, and is not an "assault rifle." It works just like any hunting rifle but fires a smaller bullet than most. The tragedy in Orlando could have been accomplished with just about any gun, and banning the AR-15 because it looks scary won't change a thing.

+1. This is an attempt to get the low-infos on board to ban a gun that they know nothing about so the gun-grabbers can later make the argument that all semis are actually just like the banned AK and should be banned as well.

OK, so explain how a handgun could do as much damage as an assault rifle in the same amount of time?

Jesus Christ. NOTICE ALL DCUM PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GUNS. PLEASE READ A WIKI PAGE ABOUT HOW GUNS WORK.

This has been explained numerous times on several threads here. There is no difference between semi handguns and semi long guns. The AK looks like a machine gun, but it's actually not. Large capacity magazines can be bought for either. Some states restrict the number of rounds in a magazine. Regardless of this, empty magazines can be quickly swapped out with new, full ones, with a little practice. A 9mm Beretta handgun can accept a 33 round magazine and then re-loaded an unlimited amount of times. Also it would probably be more convenient for a shooter to have two semi handguns rather than a bulky AK. Easier to shoot someone a t short range with a handgun also. (This is why cops carry handguns and not AKs).

We're saying we want all semi's gone. Single use handguns only.

Thank you my friend, finally a reasonable response that it least makes some sense to me although I don't agree with you!. However, just to clarify, you only would allow a single shot derringer? A single "use" handgun that would self-destruct or something after a single use (how many bullets)? Are you still opposed to the old Wild West Colt 6-shooter?

Thanks for the clarity on banning semis, I wish more were as honest as you, but the anti gun crowd here still needs to brush up on basic knowledge and terminology of guns. Single use handgun makes no sense.

So, you're getting all high and mighty about the technical differences in gun types but you know precisely (regardless of the label) the types of guns people mean when they say assault weapon or semi-automatic. I know you do. I have gun owning relatives who say you know and your just deflecting the argument. So, who's being dishonest here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 is not automatic, is not a machine gun, and is not an "assault rifle." It works just like any hunting rifle but fires a smaller bullet than most. The tragedy in Orlando could have been accomplished with just about any gun, and banning the AR-15 because it looks scary won't change a thing.

+1. This is an attempt to get the low-infos on board to ban a gun that they know nothing about so the gun-grabbers can later make the argument that all semis are actually just like the banned AK and should be banned as well.

OK, so explain how a handgun could do as much damage as an assault rifle in the same amount of time?

Jesus Christ. NOTICE ALL DCUM PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GUNS. PLEASE READ A WIKI PAGE ABOUT HOW GUNS WORK.

This has been explained numerous times on several threads here. There is no difference between semi handguns and semi long guns. The AK looks like a machine gun, but it's actually not. Large capacity magazines can be bought for either. Some states restrict the number of rounds in a magazine. Regardless of this, empty magazines can be quickly swapped out with new, full ones, with a little practice. A 9mm Beretta handgun can accept a 33 round magazine and then re-loaded an unlimited amount of times. Also it would probably be more convenient for a shooter to have two semi handguns rather than a bulky AK. Easier to shoot someone a t short range with a handgun also. (This is why cops carry handguns and not AKs).

The point is you don't know what you mean. So how can you argue intelligently?

We're saying we want all semi's gone. Single use handguns only.

Thank you my friend, finally a reasonable response that it least makes some sense to me although I don't agree with you!. However, just to clarify, you only would allow a single shot derringer? A single "use" handgun that would self-destruct or something after a single use (how many bullets)? Are you still opposed to the old Wild West Colt 6-shooter?

Thanks for the clarity on banning semis, I wish more were as honest as you, but the anti gun crowd here still needs to brush up on basic knowledge and terminology of guns. Single use handgun makes no sense.

So, you're getting all high and mighty about the technical differences in gun types but you know precisely (regardless of the label) the types of guns people mean when they say assault weapon or semi-automatic. I know you do. I have gun owning relatives who say you know and your just deflecting the argument. So, who's being dishonest here?

[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.

Your fucking boogey man arguments are so tiresome. It's a constitutional right, so it cannot be what you say. And you know that. So just stop. And limits do not mean "taking away." It means regulating and allowing safe people to keep theirs. Yes, there will be failures in some cases. Maybe many. But, it will also save many and is a step in the right direction. So, it should be done. And all you law-abiding gun owners can still keep your weapons when the bad people descend on your home and you need to defend it.

Nice tantrum, but I'm afraid you rather missed the point.

[Anonymous]

It would really help my soul to see some reasonable gun enthusiasts weigh in. I wish they demanded accountability in weapon use as thoroughly as they demand exacting terminology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, you're getting all high and mighty about the technical differences in gun types but you know precisely (regardless of the label) the types of guns people mean when they say assault weapon or semi-automatic. I know you do. I have gun owning relatives who say you know and your just deflecting the argument. So, who's being dishonest here?

Is it me, or are people going off hinges in this thread? This stopped making sense pages ago!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would really help my soul to see some reasonable gun enthusiasts weigh in. I wish they demanded accountability in weapon use as thoroughly as they demand exacting terminology.

Well, I'm a gun "moderate", and I've tried. I don't own a gun, but enjoy shooting (last time was about three years ago). I also have family/friends who are gun people and rely upon hunting for food and utilize guns for home defense.

I'm in favor of a number of additional restrictions on firearm ownership/use and have articulated those throughout the discussion, as have a number of others. I've also agreed with others' proposals.

It's hard to have this discussion, though, when people are suggesting regulations that (a) demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of firearms, and (b) therefore, would not succeed in making people safer. This isn't an attempt to play games with terminology--it's an attempt to clarify basic facts that everyone should know (and think about) before opining about solutions. Uninformed, hysterical opinions aren't going to advance the cause.

[Anonymous]

Hey gun experts ... care to enlighten us about the effective firing range of an AR15 in comparison to something like a Beretta? Then tell us some more about which is more appropriate for "home defense" or "self defense" against "bad guys."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would really help my soul to see some reasonable gun enthusiasts weigh in. I wish they demanded accountability in weapon use as thoroughly as they demand exacting terminology.

Well, I'm a gun "moderate", and I've tried. I don't own a gun, but enjoy shooting (last time was about three years ago). I also have family/friends who are gun people and rely upon hunting for food and utilize guns for home defense.

I'm in favor of a number of additional restrictions on firearm ownership/use and have articulated those throughout the discussion, as have a number of others. I've also agreed with others' proposals.

It's hard to have this discussion, though, when people are suggesting regulations that (a) demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of firearms, and (b) therefore, would not succeed in making people safer. This isn't an attempt to play games with terminology--it's an attempt to clarify basic facts that everyone should know (and think about) before opining about solutions. Uninformed, hysterical opinions aren't going to advance the cause.

+1. I've been trying to do the same, only to get heated rhetoric back. If people could try to get a baseline understanding of where things stand today and avoid name-calling, I think we would be engaging in a much more fruitful discussion.

As for "accountability in weapon use," the issue is that parties who live to be arrested are punished for using a gun that they have illegally - that accountability check is in place in addition to the standard criminal charges attendant to the underlying crime. It is telling that there are around 270 million civilian firearms in America, but usually somewhere around 30,000-35,000 gun deaths, around 2/3 of which are suicides.

When radical people of all creeds are willing to die, however, there can be no personal accountability with respect to "use" of the weapon. Nevertheless, I think most gun owners would be willing to permit safeguards that are not implicitly designed as a first step toward eliminating gun ownership in the U.S. For example, I think most/all can agree that background checks should be needed for sales outside of one's family, that people with certain diagnosed mental illnesses should not have a gun, and that the Orlando shooter who had been investigated for terror threats going back many years shouldn't have gotten a gun "legally."

(And no, I don't own a gun or want one in my house.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a ban on semi-automatics aaide, why do so many of you have problems with banning large capacity magazines?

Because law-abiding shooters who use their guns to shoot at targets at a gun range don't want to spend all their range time reloading magazines when they could be shooting. It's the same concept as getting a big bucket of balls at the declining range instead of the three that come in the box.

It's not nearly as nefarious as gun control advocates make it sound.

That's a pretty lame reason when the alternative has the benefit of slowing down mass murderers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey gun experts ... care to enlighten us about the effective firing range of an AR15 in comparison to something like a Beretta? Then tell us some more about which is more appropriate for "home defense" or "self defense" against "bad guys."

I think most people would be totally fine with taking away AR-15s. The only point people are TRYING to make is that this wouldn't have a huge impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a ban on semi-automatics aaide, why do so many of you have problems with banning large capacity magazines?

Because law-abiding shooters who use their guns to shoot at targets at a gun range don't want to spend all their range time reloading magazines when they could be shooting. It's the same concept as getting a big bucket of balls at the declining range instead of the three that come in the box.

It's not nearly as nefarious as gun control advocates make it sound.

*driving range

I am completely, 100% ok with law-abiding shooters using their guns at a gun range having to spend a little extra time reloading. I think we should only sell magazines with individual bullets, frankly.

I am completely, 100% ok with women having to get transvaginal ultrasounds and permission from the baby's father before undergoing an abortion. Actually, I'll trade you the second amendment for the 14th. Does that work for you?

Sure. Those are the same. If you're insane.

[Anonymous]

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

I'm not sure the 49 dead in Orlando appreciate the difference between full and semi-auto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a ban on semi-automatics aaide, why do so many of you have problems with banning large capacity magazines?

Because law-abiding shooters who use their guns to shoot at targets at a gun range don't want to spend all their range time reloading magazines when they could be shooting. It's the same concept as getting a big bucket of balls at the declining range instead of the three that come in the box.

It's not nearly as nefarious as gun control advocates make it sound.

That's a pretty lame reason when the alternative has the benefit of slowing down mass murderers.

+1. If you're too lazy to change clips or too cheap to buy multiple magazines then you need to securely store your large capacity magazine at the firing range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey gun experts ... care to enlighten us about the effective firing range of an AR15 in comparison to something like a Beretta? Then tell us some more about which is more appropriate for "home defense" or "self defense" against "bad guys."

I think most people would be totally fine with taking away AR-15s. The only point people are TRYING to make is that this wouldn't have a huge impact.

+1. It wouldn't have any meaningful impact whatsoever. Orlando shooter would still have killed many, many people if armed with semi-auto pistols.

People focusing on the type of gun used are hindering discussion of meaningful solutions (and adding counterproductive snark to the conversation).