When Assault Rifles get into the hands of people that want to harm police, and other people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think eventually, people are going to have to give those damn guns up. They serve no purpose to the general public. And clearly are dangerous in the wrong hands. Maybe we let people store them at gun ranges or something.

I will never understand how anyone can defend those particular firearms.

That's funny. Who is going to go and try to collect them? You can't put the lotion back in the tube. Sorry. The best they can do is make ammunition too expensive to purchase, or hard to obtain. They've actually done that with the .22 ammo. The .22 is a starter rifle.

Make them illegal and impose high fines for possession. Offer a bounty to people who turn in the holdouts. It will take a decade to get most of them, but they'll eventually make a dent.

Australia managed to get pretty much all their automatic, semi-automatic, and pump action shotguns out of private hands when they were made illegal after the Port Arthur Massacre. Overall, 1 million firearms were destroyed. There were various gun "amnesties" offered to those who retained weapons, no questions asked.

This can happen in the US, too. It will obviously be on a much larger scale.

A million guns were seized? That doesn't even move the needle in the US, where 300 million guns are in private hands. Say it slowly and let it sink in: 300 million. Australia also doesn't have a Second Amendment.

We've got to start somewhere instead of pretending that there isn't a problem at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me how many people think it's possible to round up 11 million immigrants and deport them compared to how many people think collecting 15 million guns is impossible. No one is saying to ban all guns, just a small minority of them.

I don't know how much overlap there is between the two groups above, but it's still interesting.

AR15 ownership is not a small minority. It's the pickup truck of fire arms. There is no realistic scenario under which you can expect to eliminate AR15s from private ownership. It's a lot easier to find and deport illegal immigrants: people need interaction with government bodies - work, driving, etc. Very few people walk around with their AR15, or even acknowledge that they have one at home. Sure you can pretty safely assume that you'll find some by searching through people's homes, but the government can't do that without violating the 4th amendment.

[Anonymous]

I am STILL waiting for the NRA to comment. Waiting, waiting.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think eventually, people are going to have to give those damn guns up. They serve no purpose to the general public. And clearly are dangerous in the wrong hands. Maybe we let people store them at gun ranges or something.

I will never understand how anyone can defend those particular firearms.

That's funny. Who is going to go and try to collect them? You can't put the lotion back in the tube. Sorry. The best they can do is make ammunition too expensive to purchase, or hard to obtain. They've actually done that with the .22 ammo. The .22 is a starter rifle.

Make them illegal and impose high fines for possession. Offer a bounty to people who turn in the holdouts. It will take a decade to get most of them, but they'll eventually make a dent.

Australia managed to get pretty much all their automatic, semi-automatic, and pump action shotguns out of private hands when they were made illegal after the Port Arthur Massacre. Overall, 1 million firearms were destroyed. There were various gun "amnesties" offered to those who retained weapons, no questions asked.

This can happen in the US, too. It will obviously be on a much larger scale.

A million guns were seized? That doesn't even move the needle in the US, where 300 million guns are in private hands. Say it slowly and let it sink in: 300 million. Australia also doesn't have a Second Amendment.

We've got to start somewhere instead of pretending that there isn't a problem at all.

I don't believe in doing something for the sake of doing something. The US has always had a large number of gun owners, with a wide range of guns being owned, including models that are either the same or close variants of military weapons. Clearly, gun ownership and availability of guns is not the variable that leads to an increase in violence and murders. Look at the data that correlate between gun ownership rate, gun violence rate, and overall violence rate on a per-state basis, there is clearly no correlation between gun ownership rate and overall violence rate, yet a strong correlation between overall violence rate and gun violence rate. This shows that guns are just a tool that some criminals choose to commit their violent acts with. Eliminating one tool simply will cause the criminal to choose a different tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe now that people at BLM protests are openly carrying assault rifles in Texas, instead of white "from my dead hands types," the NRA will think reasonable gun control is something desirable.

The NRA has been eerily silent this past week.

They've spent two decades building a framework in Americans' minds that just crumbled to dust in one week.

It's gonna take them a while to recover.

And yet gun sales are breaking records literally every single month. I was reading that a single gun shop in FL was selling 30 AR-15s every single day over the last few weeks.

So disgusting.

Yea, thinking of building a second one while I still can. Might pickup a couple of new bolts and carriers for spare parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am STILL waiting for the NRA to comment. Waiting, waiting.......[/quote

Comment on what? They issue comments almost every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am STILL waiting for the NRA to comment. Waiting, waiting.......[/quote

Comment on what? They issue comments almost every day.

Yes they seem to talk about well armed citizens being able to stop the government(the police). Sounds like the NRA is happy with this outcome...I am sure gun sales will increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to have an assault rifle is to kill people in mass quickly. Why does this surprise anyone.

Exactly. Assault rifles should be for military or police use only. If you aren't on active duty in a war zone, (for example) you don't need one.

BUT... people love their guns. A pistol isn't good enough to defend yourself or your home/family.

[Anonymous]

I still don't see how the AR is necessary in home defense.

I mean, really, how many times are you going to come up against someone else with an AR? And, you better hope you shoot first

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am STILL waiting for the NRA to comment. Waiting, waiting.......

Comment on what? They issue comments almost every day.

Yes they seem to talk about well armed citizens being able to stop the government(the police). Sounds like the NRA is happy with this outcome...I am sure gun sales will increase.

Yes. Please reference a-hole at 13:26.

[Anonymous]

So if you all figure out how to ban ARs, do I at least get to keep my AK-47 and Uzi? Yep, those are also legal and readily available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if you all figure out how to ban ARs, do I at least get to keep my AK-47 and Uzi? Yep, those are also legal and readily available.

Are they semi or fully automatic?

I vote to get rid of anything that's not a musket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to have an assault rifle is to kill people in mass quickly. Why does this surprise anyone.

Exactly. Assault rifles should be for military or police use only. If you aren't on active duty in a war zone, (for example) you don't need one.

BUT... people love their guns. A pistol isn't good enough to defend yourself or your home/family.

Police vests don't protect against assault rifles so the police are screwed in a gun battle with an assault weapon. That's what happened in Dallas. Vests didn't protect the police. This is scary and sad especially when we have all of the bad guys in america walking down the streets with their assault weapons. We need to get a hold of this before it is too late.

[Anonymous]

Would you have been happier if the Dallas cops had been murdered by horse shit? By edged weapons?

Guns are not responsible for murder. Murderers are responsible for murder.

Are you listening to yourself?

How many Dallas police officers would be dead if the committed murderer had been armed with an edged weapon?

You're not making sense.

[Anonymous]

A lot less carnage with other weapons...and less powerful firearms.