Please gun supporters - explain to me once and for all why you need an automatic weapon
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Can you offer a meaningful solution? How are you hoping to help? |
Anonymous
I think the point is then to get rid of any gun that has the capacity to shoot numerous bullets without reloading. It's not rocket science. Many Americans dot want guns that have this capacity on the streets. Problem is how to enforce it? Turn in guns? What happens and how is it enforced? |
Anonymous
Can you offer a meaningful solution? How are you hoping to help? There have been quite a few offered above. To summarize, I'd argue as others have that the focus should be on controlling access to firearms: 1. Universal background checks 2. Mandatory training (another poster's suggestion) 3. Federal licensing (another poster's suggestion) 4. Criminal liability for negligent storage of firearms 5. Criminal liability for negligent or reckless sale/transfer of firearms to third party If effectively enforced, these could help tremendously. |
Anonymous
There have been quite a few offered above. To summarize, I'd argue as others have that the focus should be on controlling access to firearms: 1. Universal background checks 2. Mandatory training (another poster's suggestion) 3. Federal licensing (another poster's suggestion) 4. Criminal liability for negligent storage of firearms 5. Criminal liability for negligent or reckless sale/transfer of firearms to third party If effectively enforced, these could help tremendously. np. They could certainly help against the many tragic cases of three-year-olds shooting themselves or others. But none of them would have stopped any of the famous mass shootings we've endured. (Republican, gun-control moderate, don't own any guns) |
Anonymous
The problem is that such a regulation would bar weapons that have legitimate uses--revolvers, hunting rifles, etc., many shotguns, etc. Politically and perhaps constitutionally, this proposal is not viable (in addition to the practical difficulties that you point out). It's time to look for other ways to address the problem--for better or worse, this simply stands no chance of being enacted. |
Anonymous
I think the 250 that lived would. |
Anonymous
np. They could certainly help against the many tragic cases of three-year-olds shooting themselves or others. But none of them would have stopped any of the famous mass shootings we've endured. (Republican, gun-control moderate, don't own any guns) I respectfully disagree. To cite just two examples: background checks, training requirement, and criminal liability for negligent sale/transfer could have stopped Orlando shooter from getting a gun. Similarly, threat of criminal liability could have prevented Sandy Hook mom from providing firearms to her crazy son. Transfer restrictions/liability are particularly important--sellers (including individuals) would have to be VERY careful about providing weapons to any third party. |
Anonymous
|
If you support guns, would you feel differently if it was your child gunned down? Would you still feel it was your right?
Or would you do more victim blaming and say "This wouldn't have happened if someone else in the club had a gun and defended themselves"? (Like I've been hearing people say) For shame. |
Anonymous
I thought we were trying to save lives. |
Anonymous
There have been quite a few offered above. To summarize, I'd argue as others have that the focus should be on controlling access to firearms: 1. Universal background checks 2. Mandatory training (another poster's suggestion) 3. Federal licensing (another poster's suggestion) 4. Criminal liability for negligent storage of firearms 5. Criminal liability for negligent or reckless sale/transfer of firearms to third party If effectively enforced, these could help tremendously. These sound like a good start to me. How about fingerprint-type technology to limit who can use guns? I haven't understood why manufacturers are against this. I can program my iPhone for several people to use it, so why shouldn't we do that for guns? No more dead 3 year olds, no more stolen guns used in crimes, the list goes on. |
Anonymous
|
Okay people. Since the gun proponents on here keep hashing out semantics, I've taken the time to research guns. I understand now that the AR-15 is not fully automatic, but semi automatic, and that it can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.
Everyone happy? I get it. And I still think it, along with any other semi-automatic weapon should be illegal. |
Anonymous
I am. |
Anonymous
| Gun supporters - - Why do you need to buy semi-automatics? Why???? |
Anonymous
That's what we've been trying to discuss since the original post. In summation, the answer seems to be because "it's their right". |
Anonymous
|
"To cite just two examples: background checks, training requirement, and criminal liability for negligent sale/transfer could have stopped Orlando shooter from getting a gun."
How? "Similarly, threat of criminal liability could have prevented Sandy Hook mom from providing firearms to her crazy son." No way. There's no way she imagined that he would have done what he did. |